mock trial tournament rules - New York State Bar Association

New York State
2013 Statewide
School Mock
rial
Morgan Martin
vs.
Cattaraugus Programming University
by the Law,
&
the New York State Bar
by The
York Bar
Law, Youth and
New York State Bar
of
2012
2
Neew York State Baar Assocciation
High Scchool Mo
ock Triaal Champ
pions
Nyack
k High Schoool
Sam
muel Bangs
Reebecca Blair
Cassandra Brown
n
Chaarlotte Buck
Gillian Clowes
An
ndrew Gates
Jesssica Gerber
Lau
uren Gerber
Alliison Hackel
Ryyan Kirsch
Ani Marellapudii
Natasha Sarna
S
tter
Jacob Steinberg-Ot
Mr. Kevin
K
Sullivaan
Teaacher Coach
Dr. Dunccan Rogers L
Lee II
Attorney Advisorr
Witth the Honorable Robertt S. Smith off the New Yoork State Court of Appeaals Presiding
Maay 22, 2012
2012-2013 Mock Trial Case Materials
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
LETTER FROM THE CHAIR .....................................................................................3
STANDARDS OF CIVILITY ......................................................................................5
PREPARATION FOR MOCK TRIAL ........................................................................6
PART I -TOURNAMENT RULES .....................................................................................7
• Team Composition ...................................................................................................9
• Objections ................................................................................................................9
• Dress ........................................................................................................................9
• Stipulations ............................................................................................................10
• Outside Materials ...................................................................................................10
• Exhibits ..................................................................................................................10
• Signals and Communication ..................................................................................10
• Videotaping/Audiotaping .......................................................................................10
• Mock Trial Coordinators........................................................................................11
• Role and Responsibility of Attorneys ....................................................................11
• Witnesses ...............................................................................................................11
• Protests ...................................................................................................................12
• Judging ...................................................................................................................12
• Time Limits ............................................................................................................12
• Team Attendance at State Finals............................................................................12
PART II-POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ......................................................................13
• General Policies .....................................................................................................15
• Scoring ...................................................................................................................16
• Levels of Competition............................................................................................17
• County Tournaments ..............................................................................................17
• Regional Tournaments ...........................................................................................18
• Statewide Finals .....................................................................................................18
• MCLE Credit for Judges and Attorney-Advisors ..................................................19
PART III-SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE ..........................21
• Scope ......................................................................................................................23
• Relevancy ...............................................................................................................23
• Witness Examination .............................................................................................26
• Hearsay ..................................................................................................................31
• Opinion and Expert Testimony ..............................................................................34
• Physical Evidence ..................................................................................................35
• Invention of Facts ..................................................................................................37
• Procedural Rules ....................................................................................................37
PART IV-TRIAL SCRIPT ................................................................................................41
• Summary ................................................................................................................43
• Stipulations ............................................................................................................47
• Complaint ...............................................................................................................49
•
•
Answer ...................................................................................................................53
Affidavits ...............................................................................................................59
o Morgan Martin ...............................................................................61
o Jordan Phillips................................................................................65
o Chris Cringle ..................................................................................69
o Dr. Shannon Charlton ....................................................................71
o Dana Detter ....................................................................................75
o Casey Key ......................................................................................79
PART V-EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................81
• Exhibit….CPU Promotional Brochure ..................................................................83
• Exhibit….CPU Application ...................................................................................87
• Exhibit….First Subsidy Loans, Inc. Application ..................................................89
• Exhibit….New Student Checklist ..........................................................................91
• Exhibit….Martin’s CPU Transcript .......................................................................93
PART VI-RELATED CASES AND CASE LAW ...........................................................95
• Cases ......................................................................................................................97
• Law ........................................................................................................................98
APPENDECISES...............................................................................................................99
• Performance Rating Guidelines ...........................................................................100
• Performance Score Sheet .....................................................................................101
• Past Regional Winners .........................................................................................103
• Regional Map .......................................................................................................109
• Mock Trial Summer Institute Information ...........................................................111
• Social Media .......................................................................................................113
• Youth Court Information .....................................................................................114
November 12, 2012
Dear Mock Trial Students, Teacher-Coaches and Attorney-Advisors:
Thank you for participating in the 2012-13 New York State High School Mock Trial Tournament.
The tournament is now entering its 32nd year and thanks to the continued financial and logistical
support of the New York Bar Foundation and the New York State Bar Association, New York can
continue to boast as having one of the largest and longest running mock trial programs in the nation.
Equally, the program would not be as successful as it is without the support of the numerous local bar
associations across the state that sponsor mock trial tournaments in their counties and to the County
Coordinators who spend many hours managing the local tournaments. And of course, the teachercoaches and the attorney-mentors have our thanks for their time, dedication and commitment to the
program. And last, but not least, thank you to the students who devote their time and energy in
preparing for the tournament. Every year, we are amazed at the level of skill and talent the students
bring to the courtrooms. Congratulations to the 2011-12 NYS Tournament Champion, Nyack High
School, who turned in a winning performance last May at the State Finals here in Albany.
Please take the time to carefully review all of the enclosed mock trial tournament information. The
simplified rules of evidence should be studied carefully as should the general tournament rules. This
year’s case, Morgan Martin v. Cattaraugus Programming University, is a case in which the
defendant is charged with deceptive business practices for giving misleading statements to the
plaintiff during Martin’s tour of the college, which allegedly induced the plaintiff to apply for
admission to the University.
The mock trial program is first and foremost an educational program designed to teach high school
students basic trial skills. Students learn how to conduct direct and cross examinations, how to
present opening and closing statements, how to think on their feet and learn the dynamics of a
courtroom. Students will also learn how to analyze legal issues and apply the law to the facts of the
case. Secondly, but equally important, is that participation in mock trial will teach the students
professionalism. Students learn ethics, civility, and how to be ardent but courteous advocates for their
clients. Good sportsmanship and respect for all participants are central to the competition. We thank
the teachers, coaches, advisors, and judges not only for the skills that they teach, but for the example
of professionalism and good sportsmanship they model for the students throughout the tournament.
We remind the teams that all participants; students, teachers, attorneys, parents and all
spectators must conduct themselves before, during, and after a round with the utmost respect
and civility toward the judges. If there is a circumstance in which any participant does not
abide by this standard, a referral will be made to the LYC Mock Trial subcommittee for review
for possible sanctioning.
Please be sure to share with your students the information that is found on the digital copy of the case
regarding Mock Trial Summer Institute. MTSI is scheduled for July 14-19, 2013 at Silver Bay
YMCA on the shores of beautiful Lake George. If you have not had a student attend MTSI, now is
the time! The students who return from MTSI become the team leaders of tomorrow and an
inspiration to the rest of the team. Having a student or two attend MTSI will give you a definite leg
up as you start the tournament season next year.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the time limits stated in the tournament rules, Part I,
Number 14. The Mock Trial subcommittee is taking this under advisement and will review the
feasibility of possible adjustments in the timing structure for the 2013-14 tournament season.
The tournament finals will be held in Albany on May 20 and 21, 2013. As in years’ past, the regional
winners in each of the six regions will be invited to participate in the semi-finals and if successful,
will move on to the final round the next day. The New York Bar Foundation is generously supporting
the tournament again this year and will fund the teams’ room and board for the state tournament.
More details will be available closer to the date of the tournament.
This year’s Mock Trial Tournament materials will be posted on the Law, Youth and Citizenship
website, www.lycny.org and there will be frequent updates to the Facebook and twitter pages (NYS
Mock Trial and Mock Trial Summer Institute and @NYSMockTrial.) We are also on Pinterest,
where our “pin” is nyciviced. Alternatively, you can look for us on Pinterest’s Mock Trial boards.
We know you’ll enjoy working on this year’s case. Best wishes to all of you for a successful and
challenging mock trial tournament.
Sincerely,
Richard Bader, Esq., Albany
Chair, Committee on Law, Youth and Citizenship
Oliver Young, Esq., Buffalo
Chair, Mock Trial Subcommittee
Subcommittee Members:
Craig Bucki, Esq., Buffalo
Karen Callahan, Esq., New York City
Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq., New York City
Eugenia Brennan Heslin, Esq., Poughkeepsie
Seth Gilbertson, Esq., Albany
Janet Phillips Kornfeld, Esq., New York City
Susan Katz Richman, Esq., Mineola
Michael Yood, Esq., Albany
STANDARDS OF CIVILITY
“. . . [O]urs is an honorable profession, in which courtesy
and civility should be observed as a matter of course.”
Hon. Judith S. Kaye, Former Chief Judge of the State of New York
The following standards apply to all participants in the Mock Trial Tournament,
including students, teachers, attorneys, and parents/guardians:
1.
Lawyers should be courteous and civil in all professional dealings with other persons.
2.
Lawyers should act in a civil manner regardless of the ill feelings that their clients
may have toward others.
3.
Lawyers can disagree without being disagreeable. Effective representation does not
require antagonistic or acrimonious behavior. Whether orally or in writing, lawyers
should avoid vulgar language, disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward other
counsel, parties or witnesses.
4.
Lawyers should require that persons under their supervision conduct themselves with
courtesy and civility.
5.
A lawyer should adhere to all expressed promises and agreements with other counsel,
whether oral or in writing, and to agreements implied by the circumstances or by local
customs.
6.
A lawyer is both an officer of the court and an advocate. As such, the lawyer should
always strive to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession, avoid disorder and
disruption in the courtroom, and maintain a respectful attitude toward the court.
7.
Lawyers should speak and write civilly and respectfully in all communications with
the court and court personnel.
8.
Lawyers should use their best efforts to dissuade clients and witnesses from causing
disorder or disruption in the courtroom.
9.
Lawyers should not engage in conduct intended primarily to harass or humiliate
witnesses.
10.
Lawyers should be punctual and prepared for all court appearances; if delayed, the
lawyer should notify the court and counsel whenever possible.
11.
Court personnel are an integral part of the justice system and should be treated with
courtesy and respect at all times.
The foregoing Standards of Civility are based upon the Standards of Civility for the
New York State Unified Court System.
5
PREPARING FOR THE MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
Learning the Basics
Teachers and attorneys should instruct students in trial practice skills and courtroom decorum. You may
use books, videos and other materials in addition to the tournament materials that have been provided to
you to familiarize yourself with trial practice. However, during the competition, you may cite only the
materials and cases provided in the Mock Trial Tournament materials contained in this booklet. You
may find the following books and materials helpful:
Mauet, Thomas A., Trial Techniques (6th ed.), Aspen Law and Business
Murray, Peter, Basic Trial Advocacy, Little, Brown and Company
Lubet, Steven, Modern Trial Advocacy, National Institute for Trial Advocacy
Vile, John R., Pleasing the Court: A Mock Trial Handbook (3rd ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company
Preparation
1. Teachers and attorneys should teach the students what a trial is, basic terminology (e.g., plaintiff,
prosecutor, defendant), where people sit in the courtroom, the mechanics of a trial (e.g., everyone
rises when the judge enters and leaves the courtroom; the student-attorney rises when making
objections, etc.), and the importance of ethics and civility in trial practice.
2. Teachers and attorneys should discuss with their students the elements of the charge or cause of
action, defenses, and the theme of their case. We encourage you to help the students, but not to do it
for them.
3. Teachers should assign students their respective roles (witness or attorney).
4. Teams must prepare both sides of the case.
5. Student-witnesses cannot refer to notes so they should become very familiar with their affidavits and
know all the facts of their roles. Witnesses should “get into” their roles. Witnesses should practice
their roles, with repeated direct and cross examinations, and anticipate questions that may be asked
by the other side. The goal is to be a credible, highly prepared witness who cannot be stumped or
shaken.
6. Student-attorneys should be equally familiar with their roles (direct examination, cross examination,
opening and closing statements). Student attorneys should practice direct and cross examinations
with their witnesses, as well as practice opening and closing arguments. Closings should consist of a
flexible outline. This will allow the attorney to adjust the presentation to match the facts and events
of the trial itself, which will vary somewhat with each trial. Practices may include a judge who will
interrupt the attorneys and witnesses occasionally. During the earlier practices, students may fall
“out of role”; however, we suggest that as your practices continue, this be done less and that you
critique presentations at the end. Each student should strive for a presentation that is as professional
and realistic as possible.
7. Each team should conduct a dress rehearsal before the first round of the competition. We encourage
you to invite other teachers, friends and family to your dress rehearsal.
6
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT
RULES
PART I
7
8
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT RULES
1.
TEAM COMPOSITION:
a. The Mock Trial Tournament is open to all 9th - 12th graders in public and nonpublic schools
who are currently registered as students at that school.
b. If a school chooses to limit student participation for any reason, this should be accomplished
through an equitable “try-out” system, not through disallowing participation by one or more
entire grade levels.
c. Each school participating in the Mock Trial Tournament may enter only ONE team.
d. Members of a school team entered in the Mock Trial Tournament—including teachercoaches, back-up witnesses, attorneys, and others directly associated with the team’s
preparation—are NOT permitted to attend the trial enactments of any possible future
opponent in the contest. This rule should not be construed to preclude teams from engaging
in practice matches, even if those teams may meet later during the competition.
Violations of this rule can lead to being disqualified from the tournament.
e. Immediately prior to each trial enactment, the attorneys and witnesses for each team must be
physically identified to the opposing team and the judge by stating their first and last names.
Please do not state the name of your school in front of the judge since the judge will not
otherwise be told the name of the schools participating in the enactment he or she is judging.
2.
OBJECTIONS
a. Attorneys should stand when making an objection, if they are physically able to do so.
b. When making an objection, attorneys should say “objection” and then, very briefly, state the
basis for the objection (for example, “leading question”). Do not explain the basis unless the
judge asks for an explanation.
c. Witnesses should stop talking immediately when an opposing party makes an objection.
Please do not try to “talk over” the attorney making an objection.
3.
DRESS
We emphasize to the judges that a student’s appearance is not a relevant factor in judging his
or her performance. However, we strongly encourage students to dress neatly and
appropriately. A “business suit” is not required.
9
4.
STIPULATIONS
Any stipulations are binding on all participants and the judge, and may NOT be disputed at
the trial.
5.
OUTSIDE MATERIALS
Students may read other materials such as legislative histories, judicial opinions, textbooks,
treatises, etc., in preparation for the Mock Trial Tournament. However, students may cite
only the materials and cases provided in these Mock Trial Tournament materials.
6.
EXHIBITS
Students may introduce into evidence or use only the exhibits and documents provided in the
Mock Trial Tournament materials. Students may not create their own charts, graphs or any
other visual aids for use in the courtroom in presenting their case. Evidence is not to be
enlarged, projected, marked or altered for use during the trial.
7.
SIGNALS AND COMMUNICATION
The team coaches, advisors, and spectators may not signal the team members (neither
student-attorneys nor witnesses) or communicate with them in any way during the trial,
including but not limited to wireless devices and text messaging. A witness may talk to
his/her student attorney during a recess or during direct examination but not during cross
examination.
8.
VIDEOTAPING/AUDIOTAPING
a. During any tournament round, except State semi-finals and State finals, a trial may be
videotaped or audio taped but only if each of the following conditions is satisfied:
1.
The courthouse in which the tournament round is taking place must permit video or
audio taping and the team wishing to videotape or audiotape has received permission
from the courthouse in advance of the trial. We note that many state and Federal
courthouses prohibit video or audio taping devices in the courthouse.
2.
The judge consents before the beginning of the trial.
3.
The opposing team consents in writing prior to the time the trial begins. Written
consents should be delivered to the County Coordinator. Fax or e-mail is acceptable.
4.
A copy of the video or audio tape must be furnished to the opposing team (at no cost)
within 48 hours after the trial.
5.
The video or audio tape may not be shared by either team with any other team in the
competition.
b. Video or audio taping of the State semi-finals and final rounds is NOT permitted by either
team.
10
9. MOCK TRIAL COORDINATORS
The success of the New York State Mock Trial Program depends on the many volunteer
county and regional coordinators. The appropriate supervisor will be contacted if any
representative from a high school, parent, coach, or team member addresses a mock
trial volunteer or staff person at any level of the competition in an unprofessional or
discourteous manner. County Coordinators may also refer any such matters to the
Law, Youth and Citizenship Committee of the New York State Bar Association for
appropriate action by the LYC Committee.
10.
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF ATTORNEYS
a. The attorney who makes the opening statement may not make the closing statement.
b. Requests for bench conferences (i.e., conferences involving the Judge, attorney(s) for the
plaintiff or the people and attorney(s) for the defendant) may be granted after the opening of
court in a mock trial, but not before.
c. Attorneys may use notes in presenting their cases, for opening statements, direct examination
of witnesses, etc. Witnesses are NOT permitted to use notes while testifying during the trial.
d. Each of the three attorneys on a team must conduct the direct examination of one witness and
the cross examination of another witness.
e. The attorney examining a particular witness must make the objections to that witness’s cross
examination, and the attorney who will cross-examine a witness must make the objections to
the witness’s direct examination.
11. WITNESSES
a. Each witness is bound by the facts of his/her affidavit or witness statement and any exhibit
authored or produced by the witness that is relevant to his/her testimony. Witnesses may not
invent any other testimony. However, in the event a witness is asked a question on cross
examination, the answer to which is not contained in the witness’s statement or was not
testified to on direct examination, the witness may respond with any answer that does not
materially alter the outcome of the trial.
b. If there is an inconsistency between the witness statement or affidavit and the statement of
facts or stipulated facts, the witness can only rely on and is bound by the information
contained in his/her affidavit or witness statement.
c. A witness is not bound by facts in other witnesses’ affidavits or statements.
d. If a witness contradicts a fact in his or her own witness statement, the opposition may
impeach the testimony of that witness.
e. A witness’s physical appearance in the case is as he or she appears in the trial enactment. No
costumes or props may be used.
11
f. Witnesses shall not sit at the attorneys’ table.
12.
PROTESTS
a. Other than as set forth in 12(b) below, protests of judicial rulings are NOT allowed. All
judicial rulings are final and cannot be appealed.
b. Protests are highly disfavored and will only be allowed to address two issues:
(1) cheating (a dishonest act by a team that has not been the subject of a prior judicial ruling)
and (2) a conflict of interest or gross misconduct by a judge (e.g., where a judge is related to
a team member). All protests must be made in writing and either faxed or emailed to the
appropriate County Coordinator and to the teacher-coach of the opposing team. The County
Coordinator will investigate the grounds for the protest and has the discretion to make a
ruling on the protest or refer the matter directly to the LYC Committee. The County
Coordinator’s decision can be appealed to the LYC Committee.
c. Hostile or discourteous protests will not be considered.
13.
JUDGING
THE DECISIONS OF THE JUDGE ARE FINAL.
14. TIME LIMITS
a. The following time limits apply:
Opening statements
Direct examination
Cross examination
Closing arguments
5 minutes for each team
7 minutes for each witness
5 minutes for each witness
5 minutes for each team
b. The judges have been instructed to adhere as closely as possible to the above time limits and
that an abuse of the time limits should be reflected in scoring. Specifically, although leeway
may be given based upon time consumed by an opposing attorney, objections and resulting
argument, an attorney should be penalized for repeatedly posing frivolous objections.
15.
TEAM ATTENDANCE AT STATE FINALS ROUND
Six teams will advance to the State Finals. All six teams are required to participate in all
events associated with the Mock Trial Tournament, including attending the final round of the
competition.
12
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT
POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
PART II
13
14
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
New York’s Annual Mock Trial Tournament is governed by the policies set forth below. The
LYC Committee and the Law, Youth and Citizenship Program of the New York State Bar
Association reserve the right to make decisions to preserve the equity, integrity, and educational
aspects of the program.
By participating in the Mock Trial Tournament, participants agree to abide by the decisions
rendered by the LYC Committee and the Mock Trial program staff and accept such decisions as
final.
1. GENERAL POLICIES
a. All mock trial rules, regulations, and criteria for judging apply at all levels of the Mock
Trial Tournament.
b. The Simplified Rules of Evidence and Procedure contained in Part III govern the trial
proceedings.
c. County Coordinators administer county tournaments. County Coordinators have sole
responsibility for organizing, planning, and conducting tournaments at the county level and
should be the first point of contact for questions at the county level.
d. For any single tournament round, all teams are to consist of three attorneys and three
witnesses.
e. For all tournament rounds, one judge will be utilized for trial re-enactments.
f. Teams must not identify themselves by their school name to the judge prior to the
announcement of the judge’s decision.
g. If a team member who is scheduled to participate in a trial enactment becomes ill, injured,
or has a serious conflict and as a result cannot compete, then the team may substitute an
alternate team member. If an alternate team member is not available, the local coordinator
may declare a forfeit or reschedule the enactment at his or her sole discretion.
h. Members of a team may play different roles in different rounds, or other students may
participate in another round.
i. Winners in any single round will be asked to switch sides in the case for the next round.
Where it is impossible for both teams to switch sides, a coin flip will be used to determine
assignments in the next round.
15
j. Teacher-coaches of teams who will be competing against one another are required to
exchange information regarding the names and gender of their witnesses at least three days
prior to each round.
k. No attorney may be compensated in any way for his or her service as an attorney-advisor to
a mock trial team or as a judge in the Mock Trial Tournament. When a team has a student
or students with special needs who may require an accommodation, the teacher-coach
MUST bring this to the attention of the County Coordinator at least two weeks prior to the
time when the accommodation will be needed.
l. The judge must take judicial notice of the Statement of Stipulated Facts and any other
stipulations.
m. Teams may bring perceived errors in the problem or suggestions for improvements in the
tournament rules and procedures to the attention of the LYC staff at any time. These,
however, are not grounds for protests. Any protest arising from an enactment must be filed
with the County Coordinator in accordance with the protest rule in the Tournament Rules.
2. SCORING
a. Scoring is on a scale of 1-5 for each performance (5 is excellent). Judges are required to
enter each score on the performance rating sheet (Appendix) after each performance, while
the enactment is fresh in their minds. Judges should be familiar with and use the
performance rating guidelines (Appendix) when scoring a trial.
b. Judges are required to also assign between 1 and 10 points to EACH team for
demonstrating professionalism during a trial. A score for professionalism may not be left
blank. Professionalism criteria are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Team’s overall confidence, preparedness and demeanor
Compliance with the rules of civility
Zealous but courteous advocacy
Honest and ethical conduct
Knowledge and adherence to the rules of the competition
Absence of unfair tactics, such as repetitive, baseless objections and
signals
A score of 1 to 3 points should be awarded for a below average performance, 4 to 6
points for an average performance and 7 to 10 points for an outstanding or aboveaverage performance.
c. The appropriate County Coordinator will collect the Performance Rating Sheet for record
keeping purposes. Copies of score-sheets are not available to individual teams; however, a
team can get its total score through the County Coordinator.
16
3. LEVELS OF COMPETITION
a. For purposes of this program, New York State has been divided into six regions:
Region #1: West
Region #2: Central
Region #3: Northeast
Region #4: Lower Hudson
Region #5: New York City
Region #6: Long Island
b. See Map and Chart of Counties in Regions (Appendix).
4. COUNTY TOURNAMENTS
a. All rules of the New York State Mock Trial Tournament must be adhered to at tournaments
at the county level.
b. In these tournaments there are two phases. In the first phase each team will participate in at
least two rounds before the elimination process begins, once as plaintiff/prosecution and
once as defendant. After the second round, a certain number of the original teams will
proceed to the second phase in a single elimination tournament. Prior to the competition
and with the knowledge of the competitors, the County Coordinator may determine a
certain number of teams that will proceed to the Phase II single elimination tournament.
While this number may be more or less than half the original number of teams, any team
that has won both rounds based on points, but whose combined score does not place it
within the established number of teams, MUST be allowed to compete in the phase II
single elimination tournament.
c. The teams that advance to Phase II do so based on a combination of wins and points. All
2-0 teams automatically advance; teams with a 1-1 record advance based on total number
of points; if any spots remain open, teams with a record of 0-2 advance, based on their total
number of points.
d. If the number of teams going into the single elimination phase is odd, the team with the
most wins and highest combined score will receive a bye. If any region starts the year with
an odd number of teams, one team from that region may receive a bye—coin toss, etc.
e. Phase II of the contest is a single round elimination tournament; winners advance to the
next round.
f. At times, a forfeit may become a factor in determining aggregate point totals and which
teams should advance to the single elimination tournament. Each county should review its
procedures for dealing with forfeits, in light of the recommended procedures below. Please
note that due to the variety of formats in use in different counties, it is strongly urged that
each county develop a system which takes its own structure into account and which
participants understand prior to the start of the local tournament. That procedure should be
forwarded to Stacey Whiteley, the New York State Coordinator, before the first round of
competition is held.
17
g. If a county has an established method for dealing with forfeits, or establishes one, then that
rule continues to govern. If no local rule is established, then the following State rule will
apply: In determining which teams will advance to the single elimination tournament,
forfeits will first be considered to cancel each other out, as between two teams vying for the
right to advance. If such canceling is not possible (as only one of two teams vying for a
particular spot has a forfeit victory) then a point value must be assigned for the forfeit.
The point value to be assigned should be derived from averaging the team’s point total in
the three matches (where possible) chronologically closest to the date of the forfeit; or if
only two matches were scheduled, then double the score of the one that was held.
5. REGIONAL TOURNAMENTS
a. Teams who have been successful in winning county level tournaments will proceed to
regional level tournaments. Coordinators administer regional tournaments. Coordinators
have sole responsibility for organizing, planning and conducting tournaments at the
regional level. Participants must adhere to all rules of the tournament at regional level
tournaments.
a. Regional tournaments are held in counties within the region on a rotating basis. Every
effort is made to determine and announce the location and organizer of the regional
tournaments before the new mock trial season begins.
b. All mock trial rules and regulations and criteria for judging apply, at all levels of the Mock
Trial Tournament.
c. The winning team from each region will be determined by an enactment between the two
teams with the best records (most number of wins and greatest number of points) during the
regional tournament. The winning team from each region will qualify for the State Finals
in Albany.
d. The regional tournaments MUST be completed 16 days prior to the State Finals. Due to
administrative requirements and contractual obligations, the State Coordinator must have in
its possession the schools’ and students’ names by this deadline. Failure to adhere to this
deadline may jeopardize hotel blocks set aside for a region’s teacher-coaches, attorneyadvisors and students coming to Albany for the State Finals.
6. STATEWIDE FINALS
a. Once regional winners have been determined, The New York Bar Foundation will provide
the necessary funds for each team’s room and board for the two days it participates in the
State Finals in Albany. Funding is available to pay for up to nine students, one teacher
coach and one attorney-advisor for each team. Students are up to four to a room.
However, if a school can cover additional costs for transportation and room and board for
additional team members above the nine sponsored through the Bar Foundation, all
members of a team are welcome to attend the State Finals.
18
b. Additional students and adults attending the State Finals will not be reimbursed for their
expenses. The cost of those students’ and adults’ rooms will not be covered by the New
York Bar Foundation grant or the LYC Program. The State Coordinator will not be
responsible for making room arrangements and reservations for anyone other than the nine
students, one teacher-coach and one attorney-advisor for each team. However, every
attempt will be made to pass along any special hotel rates to these other participants.
Additional students and adults attending the State Finals may participate in organized meal
functions but will be responsible for paying for their participation.
c. Teacher-coaches proceeding to the State Finals must communicate all special dietary
requirements and the total number of persons attending to the State Coordinator within 72
hours before the tournament.
d. Each team will participate in two enactments the first day, against two different teams.
Each team will be required to change sides—plaintiff/prosecution to defendant, defendant
to plaintiff/prosecution—for the second enactment. Numerical scores will be assigned to
each team’s performance by the judges.
e. The two teams with the most wins and highest numerical score will compete on the following
day, except that any team that has won both its enactments will automatically advance,
regardless of its point total. In the rare event of three teams each winning both of their
enactments, the two teams with the highest point totals, in addition to having won both of
their enactments, will advance.
f. The final enactment will be a single elimination tournament. Plaintiff/prosecution and
defendant will be determined by a coin toss by the tournament director. All teams invited to
the State Finals must attend the final trial enactment.
g. A judge will determine the winner. The judge’s decision is final.
7. MCLE CREDIT FOR JUDGES AND ATTORNEY-ADVISORS
The LYC Program applies for MCLE credit for attorneys participating in the New York State high
school mock trial program. All paperwork is submitted to the MCLE board after the State Finals
are held in May. Coordinators and the LYC Program must follow the following procedures:
a. County Coordinators receive and disseminate the appropriate forms to attorneys and judges
that participate in their counties.
b. The County Coordinators will collect all forms from attorneys who participated in the Mock
Trial Tournament during the current year, complete the required form provided by the Mock
Trial program manager and return it to the program manager by June 1.
c. The State Coordinator compiles all of the forms and submits them to the MCLE board within
7 days of receiving the forms from the County Coordinators.
d. Once the tournament has been accredited, certificates will be generated by MCLE staff at the
NYSBA and emailed to attorneys.
19
e. According to MCLE rules, each attorney-judge or attorney-coach may earn CLE credits by
participating in a specific activity. That is, an attorney-judge earns credits for trial time only;
an attorney coach earns credit for time spent working with students only, which does not
include the advisor’s personal preparation time. A maximum of three (3) CLE credits may
be earned for judging or coaching mock trial competitions during any one reporting cycle,
i.e., in a two-year period. Finally, an attorney who has been admitted to the New York State
Bar in the last two years MAY NOT apply for this type of CLE credit.
20
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
SIMPLIFIED RULES
OF EVIDENCE AND
PROCEDURE
PART III
21
22
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE AND
PROCEDURE
In trials in the United States, elaborate rules are used to regulate the admission of proof (i.e., oral or
physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that both parties receive a fair hearing and to
exclude any evidence deemed irrelevant, incompetent, untrustworthy, or unduly prejudicial. If it appears
that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge. The judge then
decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence must be excluded from the record of
the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection, however, the judge will probably allow the
evidence. The burden is on the attorneys to know the rules of evidence and to be able to use them to
protect their client and to limit the actions of opposing counsel and their witnesses.
Formal rules of evidence are quite complicated and differ depending on the court where the trial occurs.
For purposes of this Mock Trial Tournament, the New York State rules of evidence have been modified
and simplified. Not all judges will interpret the rules of evidence or procedure the same way, and you
must be prepared to point out the specific rule (quoting it, if necessary) and to argue persuasively for the
interpretation and application of the rule that you think is proper. No matter which way the judge rules,
you should accept the ruling with grace and courtesy.
SCOPE
Rule 101:
SCOPE. These rules govern all proceedings in the mock trial
competition. The only rules of evidence in the competition are those
included in these rules.
Rule 102:
OBJECTIONS. The court shall not consider an objection that is not
contained in these rules. If counsel makes an objection not contained
in these rules, counsel responding to the objection must point out to
the judge, citing Rule 102, that the objection is beyond the scope of the
listed objections. However, if counsel responding to the objection
does not point out to the judge the application of this rule, the court
may exercise its discretion and consider such objection.
RELEVANCY
Rule 201:
Only relevant testimony and evidence may be
RELEVANCY.
presented. This means that the only physical evidence and testimony
allowed is that which tends to make a fact which is important to the case
more or less probable than the fact would be without the evidence.
However, if the probative value of the relevant evidence is substantially
outweighed by the danger that the evidence will cause unfair prejudice,
confuse the issues, or result in undue delay or a waste of time, the court
may exclude it. This may include testimony, physical evidence, and
demonstrations that do not relate to time, event or person directly
involved in the litigation.
23
Example:
Photographs present a classic problem of possible unfair prejudice.
For instance, in a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce
graphic photographs of the bloodied victim. These photographs would
be relevant because, among other reasons, they establish the victim’s
death and location of the wounds. At the same time, the photographs
present a high danger of unfair prejudice, as they could cause the
jurors to feel incredible anger and a desire to punish someone for the
vile crime. In other words, the photographs could have an
inflammatory effect on the jurors, causing them to substitute passion
and anger for reasoned analysis. The defense therefore should object
on the ground that any probative value of the photographs is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the
defendant. Problems of unfair prejudice often can be resolved by
offering the evidence in a matter that retains the probative value, while
reducing the danger of unfair prejudice. In this example, the defense
might stipulate to the location of the wounds and the cause of death.
Therefore, the relevant aspects of the photographs would come in,
without the unduly prejudicial effect.
Rule 202:
CHARACTER. Evidence about the character of a party or witness
may not be introduced unless the person’s character is an issue in the
case or unless the evidence is being offered to show the truthfulness or
untruthfulness of the party or witness. Evidence of character to prove
the person’s propensity to act in a particular way is generally not
admissible in a civil case.
In a criminal case, the general rule is that the prosecution cannot
initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant to show that he
or she is more likely to have committed the crime. However, the
defendant may introduce evidence of her good character to show that
she is innocent, and the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut the
defense’s evidence of the defendant’s character. With respect to the
character of the victim, the general rule is that the prosecution cannot
initiate evidence of the character of the victim. However, the
defendant may introduce evidence of the victim’s good or (more
likely) bad character, and the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut
the defense’s evidence of the victim’s character.
Examples:
A limousine driver is driving Ms. Daisy while he is intoxicated and
gets into a car accident injuring Ms. Daisy. If Ms. Daisy sues the
limousine company for negligently employing an alcoholic driver, then
the driver’s tendency to drink is at issue. Evidence of the driver’s
alcoholism is admissible because it is not offered to demonstrate that
24
he was drunk on a particular occasion. The evidence is offered to
demonstrate that the limousine company negligently trusted him to
drive a limousine when it knew or should have known that the driver
had a serious drinking problem.
Sally is fired and sues her employer for sexual harassment. The
employer cannot introduce evidence that Sally experienced similar
problems when she worked for other employers. Evidence about
Sally’s character is not admissible to prove that she acted in
conformity with her prior conduct, unless her character is at issue or it
relates to truthfulness.
If an attorney is accused of stealing a client’s money, he may
introduce evidence to demonstrate that he is trustworthy. In this
scenario, proof of his trustworthiness makes it less probable that he
stole the money.
Richard is on trial for punching his coworker, Larry, during an
argument. The prosecution wants to offer that Richard has, in the
past, lost his temper and has neared physical altercations. This
evidence constitutes character evidence within the meaning of the rule,
because it is being offered to show that Richard has a propensity for
losing his temper and that he may have acted in conformity with this
character trait at the time he struck Larry. Therefore, it would only be
admissible if Richard, as the defendant, has decided to place his
character at issue.
Rule 203:
OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS. Evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a
person. Such evidence, however, may be admissible for purposes
other than to prove character, such as to show motive, intent,
preparation, knowledge, or identity.
Examples:
Harry is on trial for stealing from a heavy metal safe at an office. The
prosecution seeks to offer evidence that, on an earlier date, Harry
opened the safe and stole some money from the safe. The evidence is
not being offered to show character (in other words, it is not being
offered to show that Harry is a thief), but rather it is being offered to
show that Harry knew how to crack the safe. This evidence therefore
places Harry among a very small number of people who know how to
crack safes and, in particular, this safe. The evidence therefore goes
to identity and makes Harry somewhat more likely to be guilty.
William is on trial for murder after he killed someone during a fight.
The prosecution seeks to offer evidence that a week earlier William
25
and the victim had another physical altercation. In other words, the
victim was not some new guy William has never met before; rather,
William and the victim had a history of bad blood. The evidence of the
past fight would be admissible because it is not being offered to show
that William has bad character as someone who gets into fights, but
rather to show that William may have had motive to harm his victim.
In the same trial, the evidence shows that the victim died after William
struck him in the larynx. William’s defense is that the death was
completely accidental and that the fatal injury suffered by his victim
was unintended and a fluke. The prosecution seeks to offer evidence
that William has a black belt
in martial arts, and therefore has knowledge of how to administer
deadly strikes as well as the effect of such strikes. This evidence would
be admissible to show the death was not an accident; rather, William
was aware that the strike could cause death.
WITNESS EXAMINATION
a. Direct Examination (attorneys call and question witnesses)
Rule 301:
FORM OF QUESTION. Witnesses should be asked direct questions
and may not be asked leading questions on direct examination. Direct
questions are phrased to evoke a set of facts from the witnesses. A
leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired
by the examiner and often suggests a “yes” or “no” answer.
Example of a Direct Question: “What is your current occupation?”
Example of a Leading Question: “Isn’t it true that in your current
position you are responsible for making important investment
decisions?”
Narration: While the purpose of direct examination is to get the
witness to tell a story, the questions must ask for specific information.
The questions must not be so broad that the witness is allowed to
wander or “narrate” a whole story.
Narrative questions are
objectionable.
Example of a Narrative Question: “Please describe how you were able
to achieve your financial success.” Or “Tell me everything that was
said in the board room on that day.”
Narrative Answers: At times, a direct question may be appropriate, but
the witness’s answer may go beyond the facts for which the question
was asked. Such answers are subject to objection on the grounds of
narration.
26
Objections:
“Objection. Counsel is leading the witness.”
“Objection. Question asks for a narration.”
“Objection. Witness is narrating.”
Rule 302:
SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION. Direct examination may
cover all the facts relevant to the case of which the witness has firsthand knowledge. Any factual areas examined on direct examination
may be subject to cross examination.
Objection:
“Objection. The question requires information beyond the scope of
the witness’s knowledge.”
Rule 303:
REFRESHING RECOLLECTION. If a witness is unable to recall a
statement made in an affidavit, the attorney on direct may show that
portion of the affidavit that will help the witness to remember.
b. Cross examination (questioning the other side’s witnesses)
Rule 304:
FORM OF QUESTION. An attorney may ask leading questions when
cross-examining the opponent’s witnesses. Questions tending to
evoke a narrative answer should be avoided.
Rule 305:
SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION. Attorneys may only ask
questions that relate to matters brought out by the other side on direct
examination, or to matters relating to the credibility of the witness.
This includes facts and statements made by the witness for the
opposing party. Note that many judges allow a broad interpretation of
this rule.
Objection:
“Objection. Counsel is asking the witness about matters that did not
come up in direct examination.”
Rule 306:
IMPEACHMENT. An attorney may impeach the credibility of a
witness (show that a witness should not be believed) in the following
ways:
1. A witness may testify as to another witness’s reputation for
truthfulness, provided that an adequate foundation is established
for the testifying witness’s ability to testify about the other
witness’s reputation.
27
Example:
Ben testifies at trial. Jeannette then takes the stand and is familiar
with Ben’s reputation in the community as not being truthful.
Jeannette therefore would be able to testify to Ben's reputation for
truthfulness.
2. Counsel may ask questions demonstrating that the witness has
made statements on other occasions that are inconsistent with the
witness’s present testimony. A foundation must be laid for the
introduction of prior contradictory statements by asking the
witness whether he or she made such statements.
Example:
If a witness previously stated that the car was black but at trial
testified that the car was red, the witness could be questioned
about this prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes.
3. An attorney may ask questions demonstrating the witness’s bias in
favor of the party on whose behalf the witness is testifying, or
hostility toward the party against whom the witness is testifying or
the witness’s interest in the case.
Examples:
“Isn’t it true that you are being paid to testify at this trial?” If the
witness is paid to testify, he may have an incentive not to tell the
truth while testifying.
Steve is on trial for bank robbery, and calls his father as a defense
witness to testify that they were watching football at the time of the
crime. On cross examination, the prosecutor could attempt to
demonstrate the father’s bias that could cause him to fabricate an
alibi for his son. Proper questions to impeach the father’s
credibility might include, “You love your son very much, don’t
you?” and “You don’t want to see your son go to jail, do you?”
Rule 307:
IMPEACHMENT
BY
EVIDENCE
OF
A
CRIMINAL
CONVICTION. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a
witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall
be admitted, but only if the crime was a felony or involved moral
turpitude, regardless of punishment, and the court determines that the
value of this evidence as reliable proof outweighs its prejudicial effect
to a party. Crimes of moral turpitude are crimes that involve
dishonesty or false statements. These crimes involve an intent to
deceive or defraud, such as forgery, perjury, counterfeiting and fraud.
28
Example:
“Have you ever been convicted of criminal possession of marijuana?”
Objections:
“Objection. The prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs its
usefulness.”
“Objection. The prior conviction being testified to is not a felony or a
crime involving moral turpitude.”
c. Re-Direct Examination
Rule 308:
LIMIT ON QUESTIONS. After cross examination, up to three, but no
more than three questions may be asked by the attorney conducting the
direct examination, but such questions are limited to matters raised by
the attorney on cross examination.
The presiding judge has
considerable discretion in deciding how to limit the scope of re-direct.
NOTE: If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of the witness has
been attacked on cross examination, the attorney whose witness has been
damaged may wish to ask several more questions. These questions should be
limited to the damage the attorney thinks has been done and should be
phrased so as to try to “save” the witness’s truth-telling image in the eyes of
the court. Re-direct examination is limited to issues raised by the attorney on
cross examination. Please note that at times it may be more appropriate not
to engage in re-direct examination.
Objection:
“Objection. Counsel is asking the witness about matters that did not
come up in cross examination.”
d. Re-Cross Examination
Rule 309:
LIMIT ON QUESTIONS. Three additional questions, but no more
than three, may be asked by the cross-examining attorney, but such
questions are limited to matters on re-direct examination and should
avoid repetition. The presiding judge has considerable discretion in
deciding how to limit the scope of re-cross.
Like re-direct
examination, at times it may be more appropriate not to engage in recross examination.
Objection:
“Objection. Counsel is asking the witness about matters that did not
come up on re-direct examination.”
29
e. Argumentative Questions
Rule 310:
Questions that are argumentative should be avoided and may be
objected to by counsel. An argumentative question is one in which the
cross-examiner challenges the witness about his or her inference from
the facts, rather than seeking additional facts.
Example:
“Why were you driving so carelessly?”
Objection:
“Objection. “Your Honor, counsel is being argumentative.”
f. Compound Questions
Rule 311:
Questions that are compound in nature should be avoided and may be
objected to by counsel. A compound question requires the witness to
give one answer to a question, which contains two separate inquiries.
Each inquiry in an otherwise compound question could be asked and
answered separately.
Examples:
“Tony, didn’t you get sued by the buyer of your company and get
prosecuted by the IRS?”
“Did you see and feel the residue on the counter?”
Objection:
“Objection. “Your Honor, counsel is asking a compound question.”
g. Asked and Answered Questions
Rule 312:
Questions that have already been asked of and answered by a witness
should not be asked again and may be objected to by opposing
counsel.
Objection:
“Objection. “Your Honor, the witness was asked and answered this
question.”
30
h. Speculation
Rule 313:
Questions that ask a witness to speculate about matters not within his
personal knowledge are not permitted, and are subject to an objection
by opposing counsel.
Example:
"Do you think your friend Robert knew about the robbery in
advance?"
Objection:
"Objection. Your Honor, the question asks the witness to
speculate."
HEARSAY
Understanding and applying the Hearsay Rule (Rule 401), and its exceptions (Rules 402, 403, 404,
and 405), is one of the more challenging aspects of the Mock Trial Tournament. We strongly
suggest that teacher-coaches and students work closely with their attorney-advisors to better
understand and more effectively apply these evidentiary rules.
Rule 401:
HEARSAY. A statement made out of court (i.e., not made during the
course of the trial in which it is offered) is hearsay if the statement is
offered for the truth of the fact asserted in the statement. A judge may
admit hearsay evidence if it was a prior out-of-court statement made
by a party to the case and is being offered against that party. The party
who made the prior out-of-court statement can hardly complain about
not having had an opportunity to cross examine himself regarding this
statement. He said it, so he has to live with it. He can explain it on the
witness stand. Essentially, the witness on the stand is repeating what
she heard someone else say outside of the courtroom. The hearsay
rule applies to both written as well as spoken statements. If a
statement is hearsay and no exceptions to the rule are applicable, then
upon an appropriate objection by opposing counsel, the statement will
be inadmissible.
REASONS FOR EXCLUDING HEARSAY: The reason for excluding hearsay
evidence from a trial is that the opposing party was denied the opportunity to crossexamine the declarant about the statement. The declarant is the person who made the
out-of-court statement. The opposing party had no chance to test the declarant’s
perception (how well did she observe the event she purported to describe), her
memory (did she really remember the details she related to the court), her sincerity
(was she deliberately falsifying), and her ability to relate (did she really mean to say
what now appears to be the thrust of her statement). The opportunity to cross
31
examine the witness on the stand who has repeated the statement is not enough
because the judge or the jury is being asked to believe what the declarant said.
Example:
Peter is on trial for allegedly robbing a Seven-Eleven store on May 1.
A witness who is testifying on Peter’s behalf, testifies in the trial "I
heard Joe say that he (Joe) went to the Seven-Eleven on May 1.”
Peter, the party offering the witness’s testimony as evidence, is
offering it to prove that Joe was in the Seven-Eleven on May 1,
presumably to create a question as to whether it could have been Joe
at the scene of the crime, rather than Peter. In this example, Joe is the
declarant. The reason why the opposing party, in this case the
prosecution, should object to this testimony is that the prosecution has
no opportunity to cross examine Joe to test his veracity (was he telling
the truth or just trying to help his friend Peter out of a mess) or his
memory (was Joe sure it was May 1 or could it have been May 2)?
EXCEPTIONS
Hearsay may be admissible if it fits into certain exceptions. The exceptions listed
below are the only allowable exceptions for purposes of the Mock Trial Tournament.
Rule 402:
ADMISSION OF A PARTY OPPONENT: A judge may admit
hearsay evidence if it was a prior out-of-court statement made by a
party to the case that amounts to an admission that is against that
party’s interest at trial. Essentially, the party’s own out-of-court
statement is being offered into evidence because it contains an
admission of responsibility or an acknowledgment of fault. The party
who made the prior out-of-court statement can hardly complain about
not having had the opportunity to cross examine himself. He said it,
so he has to live with it. He can explain it on the witness stand.
Example:
Pam is involved in a car accident. Wendy was at the scene of the
crash. At Pam’s trial, Wendy testifies that she heard Pam say "I can't
believe I missed that stop sign!" At the trial, Wendy’s testimony of
Pam’s out-of-court statement, although hearsay, is likely to be
admitted into evidence as an admission against a party’s interest. In
this example, Pam is on trial so she can testify about what happened in
the accident and refute having made this statement or explain the
circumstances of her statement.
Rule 403:
STATE OF MIND: A judge may admit an out-of-court statement of
the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or
physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling,
pain, and bodily health). Such out-of-court statements of pain or intent
32
do not present the usual concerns with the reliability of hearsay
testimony. For instance, when a witness testifies as to a declarant’s
statement of intent, there are no memory problems with the declarant’s
statement of intent and there are no perception problems because a
declarant cannot misperceive intent. When applying this exception, it
is important to keep in mind that the reliability concerns of hearsay
relate to the out-of-court declarant, not to the witness who is offering
the statement in court.
Example:
Mike is on trial for a murder that occurred at the West End
Restaurant. Mike’s defense relies upon the theory that another person,
Jane, committed the murder. The defense then calls a witness who
testifies that on the night of the murder he heard Jane say that she
intended to go to the West End Restaurant. This hearsay statement is
admissible as proof of Jane’s intent to go to the restaurant.
Rule 404:
BUSINESS RECORDS. A judge may admit a memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation concerning an event or act, provided that
the record was made at or near the time of the act by a person with
knowledge and that the record is kept in the regular course of business.
The rationale for this exception is that this type of evidence is
particularly reliable because of the regularity with which business
records are kept, their use and importance in the business and the
incentive of employees to keep accurate records or risk being
reprimanded by the employer.
Example:
Diane is on trial for possession of an illegal weapon. The prosecution
introduces a written inventory prepared by a police officer of items,
including a switchblade knife, taken from Diane when she was
arrested as evidence of Diane’s guilt. The written inventory is
admissible. In this example, the statement that is hearsay is the
written inventory (hearsay can be oral or written), the declarant is the
police officer who wrote the inventory and the inventory is being
offered into evidence to prove that Diane had a switchblade knife in
her possession. The reason that the written inventory is admissible is
that it was a record made at the time of Diane’s arrest by a police
officer, whose job required her to prepare records of items taken from
suspects at the time of arrest and it was the regular practice of the
police department to prepare records of this type at the time of an
arrest.
Rule 405:
PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION. A judge may admit an out-ofcourt statement of a declarant’s statement describing or explaining an
event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event
33
or condition, or immediately thereafter. The rationale for this
exception is that a declarant’s description of an event as it is occurring
is reliable because the declarant does not have the time to think up a
lie.
Example:
James is witnessing a robbery and calls 911. While on the phone with
the 911 operator, James describes the crime as it is occurring and
provides a physical description of the robber. These hearsay
statements are admissible because they are James’s description or
explanation of an event – the robbery – as James is perceiving that
event.
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Rule 501:
OPINION TESTIMONY BY NON-EXPERTS. Witnesses who are
not testifying as experts may give opinions which are based on what
they saw or heard and are helpful in explaining their story. A witness
may not testify to any matter of which the witness has no personal
knowledge, nor may a witness give an opinion about how the case
should be decided. In addition, a non-expert witness may not offer
opinions as to any matters that would require specialized knowledge,
training, or qualifications.
Example:
(General Opinion)
The attorney asks the non-expert witness, “Why is there so much
conflict in the Middle East?” This question asks the witness to give his
general opinion on the Middle East conflict.
Note: This question is objectionable because the witness lacks personal
perceptions as to the conflict in the Middle East and any conclusions
regarding this issue would require specialized knowledge.
Objection:
“Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an opinion.”
Example:
(Lack of Personal Knowledge)
The attorney asks the witness, “Why do you think Abe skipped class?”
This question requires the witness to speculate about Abe’s reasons for
skipping class.
34
Objection:
“Objection. The witness has no personal knowledge that would enable
him/her to answer this question.”
Example:
(Opinion on Outcome of Case)
The attorney asks the witness, “Do you think the defendant intended to
commit the crime?” This question requires the witness to provide a
conclusion that is directly at issue and relates to the outcome of the
case.
Objection:
“Objection. The question asks the witness to give a conclusion that
goes to the finding of the Court.”
Rule 502:
OPINION TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS. Only persons qualified as
experts may give opinions on questions that require special knowledge
or qualifications. An expert may be called as a witness to render an
opinion based on professional experience. The attorney for the party
for whom the expert is testifying must qualify as an expert. This
means that before the expert witness can be asked for an expert
opinion, the questioning attorney must bring out the expert’s
qualifications, education and/or experience.
Example:
The attorney asks the witness, an auto mechanic, “Do you think Luke’s
recurrent, severe migraine headaches could have caused him to crash
his car into the side of George’s house?”
Objection:
“Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an expert opinion
for which the witness has not been qualified.”
However, a doctor can provide an expert opinion on how migraine
headaches affect eye sight.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Rule 601:
INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Physical evidence
may be introduced if it is relevant to the case. Physical evidence will
not be admitted into evidence until it has been identified and shown to
be authentic or its identification and/or authenticity has been stipulated
35
to. That a document is “authentic” means only that it is what it
appears to be, not that the statements in the document are necessarily
true.
A prosecutor must authenticate a weapon by demonstrating that the
weapon is the same weapon used in the crime. This shows that the
evidence offered (the weapon) relates to the issue (the crime). If the
weapon belonged to the prosecutor, it would not be relevant to the
defendant’s guilt. The evidence must be relevant to the issue to be
admissible.
PROCEDURE FOR INTRODUCING EVIDENCE: Physical evidence
need only be introduced once. The proper procedure to use when introducing
a physical object or document for identification and/or use as evidence is:
a.
Have exhibit marked for identification. “Your Honor, please mark
this as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 (or Defense Exhibit A) for identification.”
b.
Ask witness to identify the exhibit. “I now hand you what is marked
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 (or Defense Exhibit A). Would you identify it,
please?”
c.
Ask witness questions about the exhibit, establishing its relevancy,
and other pertinent questions.
d.
Offer the exhibit into evidence. “Your Honor, we offer Plaintiff’s
Exhibit 1 (or Defense Exhibit A) into evidence at this time.”
e.
Show the exhibit to opposing counsel, who may make an objection to
the offering.
f.
The Judge will ask opposing counsel whether there is any objection,
rule on any objection, admit or not admit the exhibit.
g.
If an exhibit is a document, hand it to the judge.
NOTE:
Rule 602:
After an affidavit has been marked for identification, a witness
may be asked questions about his or her affidavit without its
introduction into evidence. In order to read directly from an
affidavit or submit it to the judge, it must first be admitted into
evidence.
VOIR DIRE OF A WITNESS. When an item of physical evidence is
sought to be introduced under a doctrine that normally excludes that
type of evidence (e.g., a document which purports to fall under the
business record exception to the Hearsay Rule), or when a witness is
offered as an expert, an opponent may interrupt the direct examination
36
to request the judge’s permission to make limited inquiry of the
witness, which is called “voir dire.”
The opponent may use leading questions to conduct the voir dire but it
must be remembered that the voir dire’s limited purpose is to test the
competency of the witness or evidence and the opponent is not entitled
to conduct a general cross examination on the merits of the case.
The voir dire must be limited to three questions and any time spent
on voir dire will be deducted from the time allowed for cross
examination of that witness.
INVENTION OF FACTS (Special Rules for the Mock Trial Competition)
Rule 701:
DIRECT EXAMINATION. On direct examination, the witness is
limited to the facts given. Facts cannot be made up. If the witness
goes beyond the facts given opposing counsel may object. If a witness
testifies in contradiction of a fact given in the witness’s statement,
opposing counsel should impeach the witness during cross
examination.
Objection:
“Objection. Your Honor, the witness is creating facts which are not in
the record.”
Rule 702:
CROSS EXAMINATION. Questions on cross examination should not
seek to elicit information that is not contained in the fact pattern. If on
cross examination a witness is asked a question, the answer to which is
not contained in the witness’s statement or the direct examination, the
witness may respond with any answer that does not materially alter the
outcome of the trial. If a witness’s response might materially alter the
outcome of the trial, the attorney conducting the cross examination
may object.
Objection:
“Objection. The witness’s answer is inventing facts that would
materially alter the outcome of the case.”
PROCEDURAL RULES
Rule 801:
PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTIONS. An attorney may object any time
the opposing attorneys have violated the “Simplified Rules of
Evidence and Procedure.” Each attorney is restricted to raising
objections concerning witnesses, whom that attorney is responsible for
examining, both on direct and cross examinations.
37
NOTE:
The attorney wishing to object (only one attorney may object at a
time) should stand up and do so at the time of the violation. When
an objection is made, the judge will ask the reason for it. Then the
judge will turn to the attorney who asked the question and the
attorney usually will have a chance to explain why the objection
should not be accepted (“sustained”) by the judge. The judge will
then decide whether a question or answer must be discarded
because it has violated a rule of evidence (“objection sustained”),
or whether to allow the question or answer to remain on the trial
record (“objection overruled”).
Rule 802:
MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Motions for directed verdict or dismissal
are not permitted at any time during the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s
case.
Rule 803:
CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Closing arguments must be based on the
evidence presented during the trial.
Rule 804:
OBJECTIONS DURING OPENING STATEMENTS AND
CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Objections during opening statements and
closing arguments are NOT permitted.
Rule 901:
PROSECUTION’S BURDEN OF PROOF (criminal cases).
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A defendant is presumed to be
innocent. As such, the trier of fact (jury or judge) must find the
defendant not guilty, unless, on the evidence presented at trial, the
prosecution has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Such proof precludes every reasonable theory except that
which is consistent with the defendant’s guilt.
A reasonable
doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason
exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an
actual doubt, not an imaginary one. It is a doubt that a reasonable
person would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that
was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.
While the defendant may introduce evidence to prove his/her
innocence, the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant.
Moreover, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
every element of the crime including that the defendant is the
person who committed the crime charged. (Source: NY Criminal
Jury Instructions).
38
Rule 902:
PLAINTIFF’S BURDENS OF PROOF (civil cases).
902.1 Preponderance of the Evidence: The plaintiff must prove
his/her claim by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence.
The credible evidence is testimony or exhibits that the trier of fact
(jury or judge) finds to be worthy to be believed. A preponderance
of the evidence means the greater part of such evidence. It does
not mean the greater number of witnesses or the greater length of
time taken by either side. The phrase refers to the quality of the
evidence, i.e., its convincing quality, the weight and the effect that
it has on the trier of fact. (Source: NY Pattern Jury Instructions,
§1:23).
902.2 Clear and Convincing Evidence: (To be used in cases
involving fraud, malice, mistake, incompetency, etc.) The burden
is on the plaintiff to prove fraud, for instance, by clear and
convincing evidence. This means evidence that satisfies the trier
of fact that there is a high degree of probability that the ultimate
issue to be decided, e.g., fraud, was committed by the defendant.
To decide for the plaintiff, it is not enough to find that the
preponderance of the evidence is in the plaintiff’s favor. A party
who must prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence
only need to satisfy the trier of fact that the evidence supporting
his/her case more nearly represents what actually happened than
the evidence which is opposed to it. But a party who must
establish his/her case by clear and convincing evidence must
satisfy the trier of fact that the evidence makes it highly probable
that what s/he claims is what actually happened. (Source: NY
Pattern Jury Instructions, §1:64).
39
40
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
TRIAL SCRIPT
PART IV
41
42
Case Summary
Morgan Martin v. Cattaraugus Programming University
In the fall of 2009, Morgan Martin was a senior at Fallsview High School in Fallsview, New
York. Morgan had earned mostly Bs and Cs as a student but had developed a passion for
computers and technology. Morgan had taken all of the computer courses that Fallsview had to
offer, from word processing to programming in C++, and hoped one day to pursue a career as a
computer programmer or as an information technology specialist.
Moe Demm, Morgan’s computer science teacher at Fallsview High School, had encouraged
Morgan to enroll as a computer science major at Fallsview Community College. Mr. Demm
advised Morgan that after two years of matriculation at Fallsview Community College, s/he
would be able to transfer to a four-year SUNY institution to obtain a bachelor’s degree and the
career counseling necessary to land a job that would put Morgan’s computer skills to good use.
Morgan discounted Mr. Demm’s advice, however, because Morgan was tired of living in
Fallsview and wanted to pursue his/her higher education out of town.
Upon taking standardized testing in the spring of his/her junior year, Morgan completed a survey
that requested information about Morgan’s academic interests. In responding to this survey,
Morgan declared that s/he sought to major in computer science and gave consent for his/her
name, mailing address and e-mail address to be disseminated to colleges and universities for
student recruitment purposes.
Soon after Morgan’s 18th birthday in December 2009, Morgan unexpectedly received a glossy,
sleek brochure from Cattaraugus Programming University (CPU), a two-year, private, for-profit,
community college located in Little Valley, New York. The brochure explained CPU’s two-year
associate’s degree programs in computer-related fields. Morgan was intrigued by this
communication. Never before had Morgan heard of CPU, but the brochure suggested that CPU
featured all that Morgan was looking for in a school: an out-of-town location where Morgan
could enjoy his/her freedom, challenging computer courses and an opportunity earn credits to
transfer to a four-year institution after graduation. The brochure featured, among other things,
numerous photos of the school and its high-tech classrooms, and a testimonial from a former
student and an employer of CPU graduates. In describing CPU, the brochure stated:
•
•
Private financial aid was available for qualified applicants;
Over 95% of CPU graduates received “computer-related employment” or proceeded to a
four-year institution within one year after graduation;
43
•
•
•
•
•
CPU’s career placement office was “experienced at finding unpaid internships for CPU’s
students”;
Credits earned at CPU were transferable to “numerous four-year colleges”;
CPU courses were taught by “accredited computer science professionals” who possessed
the “highest qualifications in their field”;
CPU’s tuition offered an “excellent value for a world-class education”; and
CPU enabled students to participate in a “wide range of extracurricular activities.”
Based on these statements and the positive perception that Morgan developed after s/he read the
brochure, Morgan decided to visit CPU. On February 16, 2010, Morgan took a CPU campus
tour led by Dr. Shannon Charlton, the CPU Dean of Admissions. During the tour, and in
response to Morgan’s questions, Dr. Charlton represented that “many four-year institutions
regularly accepted CPU credits toward bachelor’s degrees,” and that CPU’s career placement
office played “an active role in referring current students and graduates to businesses that are
looking for employees with knowledge of cutting-edge computer technologies to fill high-paying
jobs.”
Given these representations and in reliance upon CPU’s promotional brochure, Morgan decided,
after the tour, to apply for enrollment in CPU for the fall of 2010. Morgan was granted “instant
admission” after s/he filled out a one-page application. Annual tuition was steep, over $30,000,
and Morgan expressed concern to the admissions office about this cost. In response, a CPU
admissions counselor, Dana Detter, encouraged Morgan to take out a loan underwritten by First
Subsidy Loans, Inc., to pay the cost of Morgan’s education. On the spot, Morgan signed the
necessary loan paperwork and an agreement to attend classes at CPU in the fall of 2010.
Before doing so, however, Morgan failed to read the fine print that was included on these
documents. The fine print clarified that
•
•
•
Credits earned at CPU may not be accepted at all four-year educational institutions;
First Subsidy Loans, Inc., was an affiliate of CPU; and
First Subsidy Loans, Inc., charged an interest rate well above the interest rate offered by
the federal government or other private providers of student loans.
Morgan graduated from CPU in May 2012 with an associate’s degree in information systems
technology. During Morgan’s two years as a CPU student, however, Morgan found his/her
experience to be underwhelming and far short of what Morgan had expected from CPU’s
promotional materials. After enrolling at CPU, Morgan learned
•
•
S/he could have obtained student loans at a much lower cost than was provided by First
Subsidy Loans, Inc.;
CPU received a significant portion of the interest payments that Morgan would make on
his/her loans, because First Subsidy Loans, Inc., was an affiliate;
44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
When CPU described its graduates as finding “computer-related” employment, CPU had
meant employment that required work with computers, rather than employment as a
computer programmer or as an information technology specialist;
CPU’s career placement office, in fact, had a poor track record of placing students in
unpaid internships;
CPU credits were transferable only to a handful of for-profit, four-year colleges located
in the Caribbean and the South Pacific;
CPU’s professors were accredited only by an organization that CPU and several other
for-profit colleges had founded;
Many of CPU’s professors lacked master’s or doctoral degrees in computer science;
In addition to paying tuition, CPU students needed to pay “activity fees” that amounted to
thousands of dollars in order to remain in good standing at CPU;
Several courses needed for Morgan’s matriculation weren’t available because of
professors’ sabbaticals and leaves of absence that made it nearly impossible for him/her
to graduate in two years;
Due to these sabbaticals, most students needed more than two years to graduate, and
therefore were required to pay more than four semesters of tuition in order to take all of
their required courses. Indeed, Morgan graduated in May 2012 only because s/he paid
extra tuition to take necessary courses during a “summer semester” in 2011; and
CPU was not accredited by the National Association of Computer Colleges but rather by
the “Leibniz League,” an organization that CPU and other for-profit colleges had created.
Since graduation, Morgan has been unable to find work in his field, or in a related field, of study.
Several prospective employers have advised Morgan that his/her degree is “not worth the paper it
is printed on,” because CPU maintains a poor academic reputation. Able to land only a
minimum-wage job that does not require any training or expertise in computer science, Morgan
is concerned that s/he will be unable to pay his/her student loans, which are not dischargeable in
bankruptcy except in cases of “extreme hardship.” Morgan could matriculate at Fallsview
Community College, whose credits are transferable to four-year institutions throughout the
SUNY system, but is reluctant to spend two more years to attain the level of education that
Morgan thought s/he would attain at CPU. Feeling that s/he was duped and misled by CPU and
its representatives, Morgan alleges that CPU engaged in deceptive business practices, and seeks
monetary damages pursuant to New York General Business Law § 349.
CPU disagrees strongly with Morgan’s theory of the case. At trial, CPU shall highlight that
Morgan’s relative lack of success arose not from any deceptive conduct on the part of CPU, but
rather from Morgan’s own laziness and poor study habits during his/her time as a student. This
is reflected, CPU will argue, in Morgan’s failure to ask more questions about CPU before
Morgan enrolled, in Morgan’s failure to read CPU’s promotional materials and application and
financial aid forms more carefully and thoroughly, in the poor grades that Morgan earned at
45
CPU, in Morgan’s refusal to take advantage of the career placement services that CPU offered
and in Morgan’s well-known proclivity for partying.
Notwithstanding CPU’s arguments, the trial court denied CPU’s motion for summary judgment
and determined that Morgan’s claim presented issues of fact that had to be resolved at trial.
Witnesses:
For the Plaintiff:
Morgan Martin, the Plaintiff and a CPU graduate
Dr. Chris Cringle, the President of the National Association of Computer Colleges
Jordan Phillips, a former CPU Admissions Counselor
For the Defendant:
Dr. Shannon Charlton, the CPU Dean of Admissions
Dana Detter, a CPU Admissions and Financial Aid Counselor
Casey Key, a former CPU student who graduated with Morgan Martin
46
STIPULATIONS
1. All witness statements are sworn and notarized.
2. All items of evidence are eligible for use at trial, following proper procedure for
identification and submission.
3. Any enactment of this case is conducted after the named dates in the stipulated facts and
witness affidavits.
4. No other stipulations shall be made between the plaintiff/prosecution and the defense,
except as to the admissibility of evidentiary exhibits provided herein.
5. A true and accurate copy of Morgan Martin’s official transcript is provided as evidence
and is admissible subject to the laying of a proper foundation.
47
48
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF CATTARAUGUS
_______________________________________________
MORGAN MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Index No. 2012/01234
CATTARAUGUS PROGRAMMING UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Morgan Martin, by and through his/her attorneys, Latham & Greenbush, LLP, for
and as his/her Complaint against Cattaraugus Programming University, respectfully alleges as
follows:
1.
PARTIES AND VENUE
At all times relevant hereto, Morgan Martin was and is a resident of the Town of
Fallsview, County of Niagara, State of New York.
2. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Cattaraugus Programming
University is a domestic, two-year, private, for-profit community college located in the Town of
Little Valley, County of Cattaraugus, State of New York.
3. Venue in Cattaraugus County is proper for this action, pursuant to CPLR 503(a).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. Upon information and belief, Cattaraugus Programming University (hereinafter
referred to as CPU) offers two-year associate’s degrees in computer-related disciplines, such as
computer programming and digital media arts, to the consuming general public who have
obtained the requisite academic credentials for enrollment as determined by CPU.
49
5. Plaintiff, Morgan Martin, was accepted and enrolled as a student at CPU in September
2010 and graduated with an associate’s degree in May 2012.
6. In or about December 2009, Plaintiff received an unsolicited informational brochure
from CPU describing its college program. In describing CPU, the brochure stated:
That private financial aid was available for qualified applicants;
That over 95% of CPU graduates received “computer-related employment” or
proceeded to a four-year institution within one year after graduation;
That CPU’s career placement office was “experienced at finding unpaid
internships for CPU’s students”;
That credits earned at CPU were transferable to “numerous four-year colleges”;
That CPU courses were taught by “accredited computer science professionals”
who possessed the “highest qualifications in their field”;
That CPU’s tuition offered an “excellent value for a world-class education”; and
That CPU enabled students to participate in a “wide range of extracurricular
activities.”
7. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, CPU was aware of its
representations and:
That 95% of CPU graduates DID NOT receive “computer-related employment”
or proceeded to a four-year institution within one year after graduation;
That CPU’s career placement office DID NOT find unpaid internships for all of
its students;
That credits earned at CPU were NOT transferable to “numerous four-year
colleges”;
That very few of CPU courses were taught by “accredited computer science
professionals” who possessed the “highest qualifications in their field”;
That CPU’s tuition DID NOT offer an “excellent value for a world-class
education”; and
50
That CPU DID NOT enable students to participate in a “wide range of
extracurricular activities.”
8. Because of the misrepresentations of CPU, Plaintiff was prevented from making an
informed decision on whether to attend and remain at the college.
9. In reliance upon the false and deceptive representations made by CPU, Plaintiff
completed the associate’s degree program and incurred a loan debt in excess of $80,000.
10. CPU should be also be permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in such
false and deceptive business practices which have caused Plaintiff irreparable harm for which s/he
has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL
BUT BELIEVED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $80,000, TOGETHER WITH LAWFUL INTEREST THEREON, AND
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ENJOINING AND RESTRAINING DEFENDANT CPU FROM ENGAGING IN
FALSE AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF NY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW
§ 349 IN THE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING OF ITS ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE PROGRAM; AND FOR
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER.
DATED:
Little Valley, New York
December 31, 2012
LATHAM & GREENBUSH, LLP
By:
Cheryl F. Greenbush, Esq.
CHERYL F. GREENBUSH, ESQ.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
25 FRANKLIN STREET
LITTLE VALLEY, NEW YORK 14112
TELEPHONE NO.: (716) 555-8200
51
52
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF CATTARAUGUS
_______________________________________________
MORGAN MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Index No. 2012/01234
CATTARAUGUS PROGRAMMING UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
ANSWER
Defendant, Cattaraugus Programming University (hereinafter referred to as
Defendant or CPU), by and through its undersigned counsel, Seymour & James, LLP, hereby
submits the following Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Morgan Martin (hereinafter
referred to as Plaintiff). The following numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbered
paragraphs of the Complaint.
1.
At all times relevant hereto, Morgan Martin was and is a resident of the Town of
Fallsview, County of Niagara, State of New York.
RESPONSE:
Admits to the allegations of paragraph 1.
2.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Cattaraugus
Programming University is a domestic, two-year, private, for-profit community college located
in the Town of Little Valley, County of Cattaraugus, State of New York.
RESPONSE:
Admits to the allegations of paragraph 2.
53
3.
Venue in Cattaraugus County is proper for this action, pursuant to CPLR
503(a).
RESPONSE:
Admits to the allegations of paragraph 3.
4.
Upon information and belief, Cattaraugus Programming University
offers two-year associate’s degrees in computer-related disciplines, such as computer
programming and digital media arts, to the consuming general public who have obtained the
requisite academic credentials for enrollment as determined by CPU.
RESPONSE:
Admits to the allegations of paragraph 4.
5.
Plaintiff, Morgan Martin, was accepted and enrolled as a student at CPU
in September 2010 and graduated with an associate’s degree in May 2012.
RESPONSE:
Admits to the allegations of paragraph 5.
6.
In or about December 2009, Plaintiff received an unsolicited informational
brochure from CPU describing its college program. In describing CPU, the brochure stated:
That private financial aid was available for qualified applicants;
That over 95% of CPU graduates received “computer-related employment”
or proceeded to a four-year institution within one year after graduation;
That CPU’s career placement office was “experienced at finding unpaid
internships for CPU’s students”;
That credits earned at CPU were transferable to “numerous four-year
colleges”;
54
That CPU courses were taught by “accredited computer science
professionals” who possessed the “highest qualifications in their field”;
That CPU’s tuition offered an “excellent value for a world-class education”;
and
That CPU enabled students to participate in a “wide range of extracurricular
activities.”
RESPONSE:
In response to paragraph 6, Defendant denies knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegation that
Plaintiff received an “unsolicited” informational brochure from CPU and
admits that the brochure contains the information as set forth in said
paragraph.
7.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, CPU was aware
that its representations and:
That 95% of CPU graduates DID NOT receive “computer-related
employment” or proceed to a four-year institution within one year after
graduation;
That CPU’s career placement office DID NOT find unpaid internships for
all of its students;
That credits earned at CPU were NOT transferable to “numerous four-year
colleges”;
That very few of CPU courses were taught by “accredited computer science
professionals” who possessed the “highest qualifications in their field”;
55
That CPU’s tuition DID NOT offer an “excellent value for a world-class
education”; and
That CPU DID NOT enable students to participate in a “wide range of
extracurricular activities.”
RESPONSE:
Denies to the allegations of paragraph 7.
8.
Because of the misrepresentations of CPU, Plaintiff was prevented from
making an informed decision about whether to attend and remain at the college.
RESPONSE:
Denies to the allegations of paragraph 8.
9.
In reliance upon the false and deceptive representations made by CPU,
Plaintiff completed the associate’s degree program and incurred a loan debt in excess of $80,000.
RESPONSE:
Denies to the allegations of paragraph 9.
10.
CPU should also be permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging
in such false and deceptive business practices that have caused Plaintiff irreparable harm for
which s/he has no adequate remedy at law.
RESPONSE:
Denies to the allegations of paragraph 10.
Defendant denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint not
heretofore admitted, denied or otherwise controverted.
As and for its defenses, Defendant states that Plaintiff’s claims, in whole or in
part, fail to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief.
56
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant
respectfully requests judgment as follows:
1.
That Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant be dismissed with
prejudice and that Plaintiff take nothing;
2.
That Defendant be awarded its cost, disbursements and attorney fee
and expenses incurred herein; and
3.
That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
DATED: Little Valley, New York
January 18, 2013
SEYMOUR & JAMES, LLP
By:
Ryan F. Seymour, Esq.
RYAN F. SEYMOUR, ESQ.
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
100 VILLAGE PLAZA
LITTLE VALLEY, NEW YORK 14112
TELEPHONE NO.: (716) 555-2121
57
58
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
AFFIDAVITS
59
60
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Morgan Martin
Plaintiff
1. My name is Morgan Martin. I am 21 years old, and I reside with my parents at 125 Bear
Ridge Road in Fallsview, New York.
2. I graduated from Fallsview High School in June 2010. I earned mostly Bs and Cs in high
school, and I considered myself to be a pretty average student. Yet, I always had a
passion for computers and technology. Ever since I was young, I have enjoyed playing
computer games and surfing the Internet on my family’s home computer. My parents
often told me that computer games were a waste of my time, but that was what I liked to
do for fun, especially at the end of a stressful day in school.
3. In high school I developed an interest in computer programming from my love of
computer games. Fallsview High School offered several programming courses, in
languages such as Pascal and C++. My teacher, Mr. Demm, was great. Not only could he
explain complicated concepts in a way that I could understand, but he also gave plenty of
extra credit to boost my grade-point average.
4. Mr. Demm saw that I liked his classes, and he encouraged me to enroll as a computer
science major at Fallsview Community College. Mr. Demm advised me that after
earning a two-year degree, I could attend a SUNY institution to earn my bachelor’s
degree and then find work as a computer programmer full time. In hindsight, I should
have listened to Mr. Demm. As a high school senior, however, I wanted to attend school
out of town, because I could not wait to leave Fallsview and live a more independent life.
5. During my junior year, when I took a standardized college admissions exam, I filled out a
survey preceding the exam concerning my academic interests. In response to the survey,
I said that I wanted to major in computer science. I also checked a box that said I would
consent to the release of my name, mailing address and e-mail address to colleges and
universities that might be interested in recruiting me. I figured that I was planning to
investigate colleges anyway, and that any extra junk mail or spam from colleges that
might interest me was worth getting.
6. In December 2009, soon after I turned 18, I received an intriguing packet in the mail from
CPU, Cattaraugus Programming University. This was the first time I had ever heard of
CPU. Most of the time I throw away junk mail like the CPU brochure, but I decided to
look at it when I noticed the reference to “programming.”
7. The brochure said that CPU was located in Little Valley, New York. When I found Little
Valley on a map, I was happy to see that it was located several hours from Fallsview (and
from my parents). The more I read the brochure, the more I liked what I read. According
to the brochure, CPU offered two-year associate’s degree programs in computer science
and digital media arts. These programs, according to the brochure, were taught by
“accredited computer science professionals” who possessed the “highest qualifications in
their field.” The brochure claimed that any credits earned in these programs could be
61
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
transferred to “numerous four-year colleges.” The brochure also said that CPU could
match students with any of a variety of internships. Most important for my family – for
which funding college would be a stretch – CPU promised that private financial aid was
available for qualified applicants.
8. At the family dinner table the night after I read the brochure, I excitedly told my parents
about CPU, and that I wanted to consider CPU as an option for my future education. My
parents did not react well. My mom said she wanted me to stay in Fallsview, and my Dad
said that he would never go to a college that sent me a slick brochure. Later in the
evening, my dad went online to research CPU, and saw a bunch of negative reviews
about the school. The next morning at breakfast, my dad showed me printouts of the
reviews, in which supposed current and former students called the school, in sum and
substance, a colossal waste of money. I guess I should have listened to those online
reviews, but I was stubborn and didn’t listen. At the time, I was anxious to get out of
Fallsview, and CPU seemed like a good option, so I decided to pay a visit to CPU on my
own when I had the first opportunity.
9. That opportunity came during my winter break in February 2010. I bought a $5.00 ticket
to take the “Super Bus” from Fallsview to Little Valley. The bus conveniently stopped at
the Cattaraugus County Courthouse, a few blocks from the CPU campus. When I arrived
at the office of admissions, I signed up to take a campus tour led by Dr. Shannon
Charlton, the Dean of Admissions. During the tour, Dr. Charlton talked mostly about the
country setting, about the internships that CPU students could receive, about the worldclass ski slopes nearby, and about the fun things students liked to do on the weekends in
Olean and Salamanca. Dr. Charlton did not discuss academic programs much, but I
thought nothing of this. My dad had instructed me to ask specifically whether four-year
SUNY schools accepted CPU credits. Dr. Charlton answered that “many four-year
institutions accepted” those credits but did not specify which schools did. I should have
asked for a list, but I didn’t.
10. I admit that upon touring the CPU campus, I liked the environment so much that I only
wanted to think and feel good things about the school. This became even more true when
I met with the admissions counselor, Dana Detter, after the tour. Dana had me fill out a
one-page application that sought nothing more than basic contact information, and
certainly nothing about my high school grades. Once I completed the application, Dana
told me that “congratulations” were in order, because I had earned “instant admission” to
CPU. I was ecstatic! Dana then told me that I was eligible for financial aid, and that I
could take out a “competitive” loan by filling out another form. I knew this would make
my parents happy, because of the high cost of CPU tuition – about $30,000 per year,
much more than I would have paid to attend Fallsview Community College. At that
point, I made up my mind that as an 18-year-old, it was my right to take charge of my
education. So I decided I would apply for the loan and attend CPU, whether my parents
liked it or not. Needless to say, this turned out to be a mistake.
11. First, amid my excitement in filling out the loan documents and the application, I did not
read the fine print. The application said that, in fact, CPU credits may not be accepted at
62
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
all four year educational institutions. I have since found out that the schools that will
accept CPU credits are in places like the Cayman Islands, Tahiti, Fiji, Nevis, Grenada and
other islands that I could never even afford to visit. The loan documents said that my
financial aid would be underwritten by First Subsidy Loans, an “affiliate” of CPU. I now
know that the same company owned both CPU and First Subsidy Loans, and that CPU
would get a “cut” of whatever interest First Subsidy Loans would earn on my financial
aid. The interest rate on the loan was 10%, which was much higher than the 5% rate I
could have received from the Fallsview National Bank, but I didn’t realize that then.
12. If anyone in the admissions office, particularly Dr. Charlton in response to my questions,
would have told me that CPU credits were not transferable to SUNY institutions, I
definitely would have decided not to attend CPU. I would have thought twice about
obtaining financial aid through CPU, knowing that the interest rate was so high. I
probably should have asked more questions about the documents that I was signing, but
in my view, CPU, Dr. Charlton and Dana Detter should have been forthright about the
terms and conditions of the loan. Instead, they misled me by conveniently failing to tell
me important information that would have affected my decision of where to attend
college.
13. I did graduate with an associate’s degree from CPU in May 2012. To me, however, the
degree is not worth the paper on which it is printed. My experience at CPU was far less
than what I had anticipated for several reasons.
14. First, the career placement office offered me little help in finding an internship. The
internships that were available were awarded to the very best students. As in high school,
I earned a lot of Bs and Cs. I liked programming, but I needed to have a social life, and I
did not carry six or seven flash drives around my neck like a nerd who was going to
spend all my time in the library. These nerds got all the internships, and nothing was left
over. The career placement office should have worked harder to find more internship
opportunities in western New York for all CPU students who wanted them. Maybe I
should have tried to find an internship on my own, but even so, it was job of the career
placement office to help me.
15. Second, the quality of the professors was underwhelming. None of them could compare
to Mr. Demm – they could not explain anything! Not surprisingly, these “accredited”
professors belonged to the Leibniz League – which, despite its fancy-sounding name, is
only an organization that CPU and other for-profit colleges had started on their own.
Fewer than 10% had doctoral degrees, whereas every professor in the Fallsview
Community College computer science department had earned a Ph.D.
16. Third, not only did I need to pay steep tuition, but also I had to pay $3,000 each year in
“activity fees” that CPU never disclosed in its brochure, on the campus tour or on the
application for financial aid. My parents would not let me borrow the money, so I needed
to spend most of the savings I had earned working after school at the computer lab help
desk at Fallsview High School.
63
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
17. Fourth, CPU never disclosed that so many professors would take sabbaticals (probably to
earn the master’s and doctoral degrees that they should have earned before they began
teaching). That made it basically impossible to graduate on time in two years. I did, but
only because I took some of my necessary courses during the summer of 2011, which I
had to pay for by obtaining additional financial aid from First Subsidy Loans. I suppose I
could have cut my losses and dropped out of CPU when I learned that this was true, but I
had already been enrolled for a year and still held out hope that I could get a good job
after graduation.
18. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Given my nearly $80,000 in student
loans, I cannot afford any more school. I had no choice but to take a minimum-wage job
at Sprawl City, Fallsview’s largest retailer, where I stock shelves on the graveyard shift.
It is boring work, but at least it helps pay off some of my debt. I have moved in with my
parents, who never fail to remind me what a mistake it was that I went to CPU against
their advice, and how I should have asked more questions of Dr. Charlton and Dana
Detter. To quote Mr. Catullus, my former Latin teacher at Fallsview High School,
“Caveat emptor.”
19. I consulted with an attorney at Darrow & Hand, a Fallsview law firm, in preparation for
filing for bankruptcy, but I learned that bankruptcy would not likely discharge my student
loan debt. After I explained the details of how I matriculated at CPU, the attorney
suggested that I file a lawsuit alleging CPU violated New York’s General Business Law
Section 349 with its misleading and untruthful representations that spurred me to enroll.
Never would I have ever considered giving a dime to CPU if I had known that its
supposed educational value would prove so worthless. I have decided to sue CPU not
only to recoup the monetary loss that I sustained as a result of CPU’s dishonesty, but also
to send a message that CPU needs to be forthright in its representations, so that no other
impressionable high school senior ever again makes the same mistake that I did.
To the best of my knowledge the above is true.
Dated: Fallsview, NY
December 12, 2012
64
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Jordan Phillips
Former CPU Admissions Counselor
1. My name is Jordan Phillips, I am 36 years old and I am a former CPU admissions
counselor. I was employed by CPU for the academic years of 2003-2004 through 20072008. Within my capacity as an admissions counselor, I worked closely with the Dean of
Admissions, Dr. Shannon Charlton, drafting the school’s brochures and marketing
material. In addition, I actively recruited students by visiting high schools and college
fairs to conduct interviews.
2. Currently, I reside at 93 Park Avenue, Bigg City, New York. I live alone. I am the
founder and president of Scholarly Risk Management and Public Relations, LLC, located
at 36 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2031, also in Bigg City. We represent major universities
who find themselves in undesirable circumstances, which are usually brought on as a
result of inappropriate conduct by their administrators and/or faculty members and
occasionally the student body. In short, we chart the waters of potential lawsuits and bad
press for our clients in order to preserve their good names and integrity in the face of
scandal.
3. Prior to my employment at CPU, I received a BS in marketing from Babcock College in
Wellesley, Massachusetts in 1998, and then I went straight to law school at Jaden College
of Law, where I received a JD in 2001. Most people are unfamiliar with Jaden. It was
founded by a group of retired law professors from Easternwestern University and
accredited in 1995. Previously, it was known as The People’s Law School of the YMCA
of the Greater Boston Area.
4. I subsequently returned to my hometown of Little Valley, New York, with the hope of
starting a small rural practice after I had passed the New York State bar exam. I passed
on my second attempt. I began my practice by using the marketing techniques that I had
previously mastered. After practicing for about a year, I decided that I needed to make
more money, so I looked at Craig’s List for a part-time position to augment my income
from practicing law.
5. I interviewed at CPU and was then hired as an admissions counselor. I had never worked
in an academic setting prior to my engagement with CPU. Initially it was part time, but I
was soon invited to join the staff full time. I realized that with my base salary and the
commissions that I could earn by convincing students to enroll at CPU, along with the
bonuses that were promised to me for convincing students to obtain student loans through
First Subsidy Loans, Inc., I could far exceed my earning potential as a small-town lawyer
in an economically depressed county. I stopped practicing law in July 2003.
6. I left CPU in October of 2008. I left of my own accord after I ran into a former client on
the street – Farmer Muller. I was told that the Muller’s farm was sold to satisfy a huge
debt that had accumulated in order to send young Ethan to CPU. The student loan from
First Subsidy had to be co-signed by Farmer Muller as Ethan was just 17 at the time of
65
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
his enrollment. After graduation Ethan was unable to find employment, which left Farmer
Muller responsible for paying back the loan, including all of the interest that had accrued.
Farmer Muller was forced to file bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee ordered the farm to
be sold in order to satisfy the debt. Farmer Muller said that Ethan had gone to CPU
because his grades were not good enough to allow him to go to any other school, and
CPU seemed to be guaranteeing Ethan a future off the farm. Well, I guess CPU was
right; Ethan now has no future on the farm. Disgusted with myself, my role at CPU and
CPU all together, I quit the next day.
7. As an admissions counselor from 2003-2004 through 2007-2008, I can comment on
CPU’s marketing and recruitment practices during my period of employment. Subsequent
to my leaving CPU, I have had no contact with CPU and its personnel.
8. Dr. Shannon Charlton was the Dean of Admissions at CPU and my immediate
supervisor. Nothing was done without Dr. Charlton’s knowledge and approval.
9. When I was hired, Dr. Charlton made it clear that I was hired for my marketing expertise,
and that my assignment was to do “that which was necessary to fill seats, short of
kidnapping students.” S/he was not kidding!
10. Additionally, I was told to sell as many First Subsidy Loan packages as I could, and I was
advised never to inform the prospective students about any other types of financial aid. I
was told that if a student inquired about any other sources of student loans, I was to
gently steer them to the Internet but encourage them to apply for a guaranteed First
Subsidy loan.
11. Our marketing campaign was geared toward potential students that were of a
demographic spectrum that included those of average to low intellect. Basically, we
catered to those who were not necessarily the brightest lights on the porch. Dr. Charlton
used to emphasize that “they are like cattle because they like to be led by their noses and
they do not like to ask questions.” S/he was not joking.
12. I worked very closely with Dr. Charlton designing the brochure. At the time I was very
proud of it because it was so effective at luring potential students, but in hindsight I
should have felt ashamed. While we did not lie in the brochure, we certainly did not
precisely tell the truth. For example:
a. “At CPU we offer private financial aid for qualified applicants.” Financial aid was
available for any student that had a pulse if they applied to First Subsidy Loans,
because it was an affiliate of CPU. The majority of the interest that was paid to
First went right back as income to CPU.
b. “Over 95% of graduates received computer-related employment or are accepted
into a four-year institution within one year of graduation.” For those graduates
who were able to secure employment, over 95% were employed in computerrelated jobs such as cashiers, gas station attendants, secretaries, meter readers, etc.
They all work with computers in one form or another. Regarding the four-year
66
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
institution line, Charlton had me include that fact after s/he had heard a few of our
alumni were sent to a state prison for a minimum sentence of four years. We had a
good laugh in the office that day.
c. “Our trained career placement office is experienced at finding unpaid
internships.” Overall, the career placement office had a poor track record at
accomplishing this task because of the lack of opportunities related to computer
science within our county. Occasionally, the placement office would get the odd
phone call looking for an intern and the placement office would place the
appropriate student. Additionally, the placement office would always place at
least one student intern in its office to work on its respective database. Also, if a
student did make a request for an internship with a specific employer, then the
placement office would make a call.
d. Transferability of credits to four-year colleges? Yes, but those schools were
located in the Caribbean and the South Pacific.
e. Our “accredited faculty” were accredited by an accrediting educational
organization, the Leibniz League, which was founded and funded by for-profit
educational institutes such as CPU and others. Many of CPU’s professors lacked
master’s and doctoral degrees, but they were all very sincere, well-meaning and
worked hard for their students.
13. We also had an aggressive manner of raising funds beyond our customary tuition, with
“activity fees,” and some of our necessary courses for graduation were not always
available in a two-year block, so the students were forced to take summer courses and/or
additional semesters in order to graduate.
14. I regret having worked for CPU.
To the best of my knowledge the above is true.
Dated: Bigg City, New York
Jordan Phillips
December 14, 2012
Jordan Phillips
67
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
68
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Dr. Chris Cringle
President of the NACC
1. My name is Chris Cringle and I am 58 years old. I live in Boston, Massachusetts.
2. I am the president of the National Association of Computer Colleges (NACC). I have
served in this role for six years.
3. Prior to joining NACC, I worked as a professor of computer science and engineering at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). I left MIT to pursue other
opportunities just before a research integrity audit of my lab was conducted by the
National Science Foundation. I understand that the audit produced some questionable
results, which could not be addressed due to my absence. As a result, the department was
under a cloud of suspicion for some time. In hindsight, I regret the timing of my
departure and know that I lost the respect of some of my colleagues as a result.
4. One former colleague whose respect I do not regret losing is “Dr.” Shannon Charlton.
Shannon was the roommate of my former love interest, Ryan Buckeye. I spent a lot of
time in their apartment back when I was working on my thesis, “Development of a
Concentration-Enhanced Mobility Shift Assay Platform for Aptamer-Based Biomarker
Detection and Kinase Profiling.” Shannon was working on a related project that s/he
titled “Mobility Shift Assay Platform Inducement Through Intensity-Enhancement for
Kinase Detection and Aptamer-Based Biomarker Recognition.” Of course, the two
projects were entirely dissimilar, but when I published first, s/he accused me a stealing
some of his/her research. The Dean of Education concluded that I had not done anything
wrong at all. If anyone is a scoundrel, it is Shannon. I caught him/her cheating on the
advanced statistics exam. The Dean told us “enough is enough” and to knock it off with
the accusations. The schism eventually led to Ryan and me breaking up.
5. NACC sets standards for academic program accreditation, personal certification, and
professional development for educators and industry professionals involved in computing
and information technology. Its primary mission is protecting high standards within the
industry workforce and ensuring the success of faculty, students and industry
professionals in developing and completing competitive training and educational
programs in the United States.
6. NACC fulfills its accreditation role by setting standards and then evaluating applicant
institutions to see that they meet those standards. Accredited institutions are also
reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to meet accreditation standards.
7. NACC accreditation standards cover areas such as admissions standards, graduation
rates, faculty qualifications, technological resources, academic rigor, job placement and
per-student expenditures. Evaluations of standards compliance are performed by teams
of experts from peer institutions, as well as NACC staff.
69
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
8. The U.S. Department of Education requires accreditation as a prerequisite for
participation in its Title IV student loan programs. Similarly, most accredited institutions
only accept transfer credits from other accredited institutions. In short, accreditation is
widely accepted as the surest benchmark of an academic program’s value. Unaccredited
institutions are often referred to as “diploma mills.”
9. Cattaraugus Programming University (CPU) last applied for NACC accreditation in
2009. Our team conducted an extensive evaluation, although it was clear from the start
that CPU would not meet our standards. The application was denied, but NACC
provided CPU with an “action plan” of steps that it could take to improve its chances of
achieving successful accreditation in the future. I am not aware of CPU’s progress
toward completing this plan.
10. At the time of the evaluation, NACC’s evaluation team noted the following:
• CPU was “open enrollment,” which meant that everyone that applied got in;
• Many instructors were part time and nearly 90% lacked high-level degrees in their
fields;
• Much of the technology in use was three or four years out-of-date;
• Grading standards were lax, with almost no failing grades and many students
receiving high marks for little work;
• Course offerings were sparse and failed to account for several core concepts of
modern programming;
• Few graduates worked in fields directly related to programming or computer
science;
• Although tuition was well above average, per-student expenditures were below
more successful programs, including those at many community colleges.
11. As a result of its unaccredited status, it is doubtful that CPU credits can transfer to many
other institutions. In fact, NACC has a policy that its member institutions accept credits
only from each other or regionally accredited schools. The policy is meant to bolster the
standards for the whole computer education community, but some view it as an effort to
suppress competition. Predictably, Shannon Charlton has been particularly vocal in
his/her opposition to the policy.
To the best of my knowledge the above is true.
Dated: Boston, Massachusetts
Dr. Chris Cringle
December 20, 2012
Dr. Chris Cringle
70
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Dr. Shannon Charlton
Dean of Admissions
1.
My name is Shannon Charlton. I am 57 years old. I reside at 534 Big Hill Road in Little
Valley. I am the Dean of Admissions at Cattaraugus Programming University, which we
affectionately call CPU. Cute, isn’t it?
2
CPU is a two-year, private, for-profit community college located in Little Valley, New
York. Successful students receive associate’s degrees in programs like computer science
and digital media arts. I have served as Dean of Admissions at CPU since June 2002,
shortly after the college opened. Prior to coming to CPU, I worked for eight years as an
admissions counselor for a large university in the Midwest.
3.
I have a Ph.D. in education from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My master’s
degree in economics is from Boston University, and my undergraduate degree in political
science is from Reedus College. I have always enjoyed campus life. I love working with
students and was thrilled when I landed the job as an admissions counselor after
graduating from MIT. A Ph.D. working as an admissions counselor may have been a
little beneath my educational attainment, but the job market at the time was tight. So,
you take what you can get.
4.
CPU has many outstanding students in attendance at this institution, but also a few who
are academically challenged. I remember when Morgan Martin first visited CPU. I was
initially quite impressed with him/her. During the campus tour, I talked to him/her a little
about CPU and our mission. S/he had in his/her possession our glossy brochure, which
does a great job describing our university, our professors, and what the students should
expect both during their academic years and afterwards. I recall that Morgan asked a few
questions. In response to one of his/her questions, I told him/her that many four-year
institutions regularly accepted CPU credits toward bachelor’s degrees. I also said, in
response to another inquiry from Morgan, that CPU’s career placement office plays an
active role in referring current students and graduates to businesses that look for
employees with knowledge of cutting-edge computer technologies to fill high-paying
jobs. Morgan seemed genuinely excited about the prospects of attending CPU.
5.
After the brief tour, Morgan went to the admissions office to meet with our admissions
counselor, Dana Detter, and s/he applied for enrollment in CPU for the 2010-2011
academic year. Morgan completed our one-page application, and s/he was accepted
immediately for admission because s/he, at the time, appeared to be a good student and
expressed great interest in CPU. While our annual tuition is approximately $30,000, we
do offer student loans underwritten by First Subsidy Loans, Inc. Dana told Morgan about
the loan program and gave him/her the loan paperwork to complete. Morgan completed
the loan application willingly and agreed to begin attending classes at CPU in the fall of
2010.
71
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
6.
During his/her two years at CPU, I was unimpressed with Morgan’s academic
performance. I am told s/he seemed to spend an inordinately large amount of time
socializing in the student union and very little time in the computer lab. It’s amazing that
Morgan was able to graduate. We are all very disappointed because s/he showed so
much promise back in 2010. If only s/he had applied himself/herself and put in a little bit
more effort, s/he would probably be working now in the computer/digital media arts
field. S/he can’t blame CPU for his/her own failings. Why, just look at Casey Key for
example. Casey would be the first to admit that s/he is no whiz kid. But Casey worked
hard during his/her two years at CPU. S/he was not out partying all of the time. Casey
got good grades and is now working as a computer programmer at Face Space, a social
networking website that is expected to go public soon.
7.
My old “friend,” Dr. Chris Cringle, should be ashamed of himself/herself. We met at
MIT when we both were earning our doctorates there. Ryan Buckeye, my roommate,
was Chris’s love interest in those days. Chris was in our apartment all the time back then.
Dr. Cringle now heads up this fraudulent operation called National Association for
Computer Colleges (NACC). This organization has set itself up as THE authority on
what is a good technology school and believes it has the authority to evaluate schools for
accreditation purposes. I heard that the schools that get good rankings are the ones that
“donate” money to NACC. The organization calls the contributions made by the schools
“voluntary” membership dues. Well, CPU does not play that game. We have a great
program and we don’t need Cringle’s stamp of approval.
8.
Dr. Cringle has never gotten over our little spat back at MIT, when I reported to the Dean
of Education that Chris had committed plagiarism in major parts of his/her Ph.D. thesis.
S/he had taken major parts of my work as his/her own. My thesis was “Mobility Shift
Assay Platform Inducement Through Intensity-Enhancement for Kinase Detection and
Aptamer-Based Biomarker Recognition.” Cringle’s paper was called “Development of a
Concentration-Enhanced Mobility Shift Assay Platform for Aptamer-Based Biomarker
Detection and Kinase Profiling.” S/he published first, and I was sure s/he stole some of
my work.
9.
The Dean launched a big investigation and concluded that while, in his opinion, no
plagiarism had occurred, my interpretation of what Cringle had done was an honest
mistake. Since that time, Cringle has had it in for me. In retaliation, s/he even accused
me of cheating on the advanced statistics exam. The Dean finally told both of us to just
knock it off with all of the accusations. CPU will never get a good accreditation so long
as Cringle is running NACC. So don’t believe anything Cringle has to say about me and
CPU. S/he was kicked out of MIT following an integrity audit by the National Science
Foundation showing that Cringle’s lab was fudging its research results.
10.
This lawsuit by Morgan is just sour grapes. His/her lack of success at CPU is Morgan’s
own fault. Just take a look at his/her academic transcript. As everybody knows, it is
within the ordinary course of business for academic institutions to prepare and keep grade
reports. And it is a very good thing we did in Morgan’s case. His/her transcript shows a
less than stellar performance.
72
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
11.
The CPU brochure and my presentation during the tour are an honest and true portrayal
of CPU. It is incumbent upon prospective students like Morgan to ask questions and
obtain more details in order to make an informed choice about where they will attend
college. We even have a disclaimer in the loan application letting students know that
First Subsidy Loans has a special relationship with CPU. So what if the disclaimer is in
small print. It’s there, isn’t it?!
12.
CPU is in the business of training young adults for high-tech jobs of the present and
future. We are not here to provide an entertainment venue for immature brats like
Morgan who just want to get away from home and party. Everyone knows that the
economic climate in Cattaraugus County has not been good in recent years, so it has been
difficult to place many of our students in internships with tech firms as we promised in
our brochure. In fact, a significant number of students have been required to find work
That is “computer-related,” which in many instances does not require extensive education
in computer science or computer programming.
13.
I don’t recall making a statement attributed to me by Jordan Phillips that our students
“. . . are like cattle because they like to be led by their noses and they do not like to ask
questions.” And even if I made a stupid comment like that, no rational person would take
a statement like that seriously. Similarly, my statement to Jordan to do “that which was
necessary to fill seats, short of kidnapping students” was just me trying to be funny.
Everybody knows that.
14.
Nevertheless, we are proud of our accomplishments here at CPU. Students who attend
CPU and apply themselves enjoy enormous success. Slackers like Morgan blame other
people for their failures.
To the best of my knowledge, the above is true.
DATED: Little Valley, New York
Dr. Shannon Charlton
December 3, 2012
Dr. Shannon Charlton
73
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
74
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Dana Detter
CPU Admissions and Financial Aid Counselor
1. My name is Dana Detter. I am 39. I reside at 255 Ridge Street, Little Valley, NY.
2. I received my BA in English from Zander College, which is a small private college in the
center of the state. Following graduation, I worked in the Zander College admissions
office for two years before pursuing my MBA at Berney University in Lightning Knob,
Kansas, where I helped pay for my tuition by working in the financial aid office.
3. For several years, I saw students rejected by my college. They’d call the admissions
office to ask, “Why? Can you reconsider?” Many of those students had attended the
“wrong” high schools. Experienced admissions officers knew that an “A” from one
school might equal a “C” from another. Students from the “wrong” schools had been
accepted before, failed, become unhappy, and eventually dropped out. I felt bad for
them. Surely with some support, these men and women could succeed in college.
4. Working in the financial aid office was worse. There I saw qualified students who were
admitted to our fine university turn us down because we could not provide sufficient
financial aid.
5. Let’s be honest about financial aid. It isn’t just scholarships or grants. Most financial aid
is loans. A limited number of athletes get scholarships, but everyone knows they have to
work harder than everyone else to keep them. They’ve got to both practice and study.
Some schools give grants, but most can’t afford to give much and the grants leave
students, and their parents, with a large amount left to pay each semester. State
universities have lower tuition, but many of them are located in the back of beyond.
Students can’t commute and the room and board are high. Really, CPU’s $30,000 tuition
is pretty competitive with other colleges.
6. I am proud to work at Cattaraugus Programming University as an admissions and
financial aid counselor. We serve students who may not be accepted at more traditional
universities and we offer them the support they need to succeed. We have free tutoring in
our academic support center. Our students are generally the first in the family to go to
college and every step forward is a new experience, not just for the student, but also for
the family, so we remove as many of the hurdles as we can. Our one-page admission
form is simple to understand. We don’t want applicants to become discouraged and give
up before they even start, so we offer instant admission.
7. We know that our applicants will have weaknesses, but we will deal with them when they
get here. We don’t rely entirely on scores from their high school or a testing service. We
test all students during orientation and address their weaknesses in order to make it
possible for them to work at the college level.
8. Financial aid is also easy to apply for. We don’t want anyone to be turned away from a
75
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
better future because some piece of paperwork wasn’t filled out correctly or because of a
past problem. We are not focused on the past, but on the future.
9. Our financial aid packages are generous and our interest rates are fair considering that the
people we loan to, generally speaking, have no savings, do not own their home and have
negligible financial assets. We have a pretty high delinquency rate and when you have
that, you have to charge a higher interest rate to cover your costs.
10. Many of our students borrow from First Subsidy Loans. First Subsidy Loans is an
affiliate of CPU, so we have the ability to loan to people who have pretty poor credit
ratings and find it difficult to get other financing. We disclose the relationship of the
school and First Subsidy right on the loan forms. It is our policy to present the forms to a
prospective student and then leave the room so that s/he can go over them before signing.
I don’t know if all our applicants read the loan forms before they sign them.
11. There are laws governing what must be disclosed on loan forms, the size of type, etc., and
we comply with all of them.
12. Students have been financing their education with student loans for decades. I had
student loans myself. When I got out of college, I got a job and paid them off.
13. It is expensive to run a college, especially one like ours. After all, it is a programming
college. We have a lot of computers. Our technology is always up-to-date. Our campus
is beautiful. The new library building is totally wired. We have study rooms for group
projects where every seat has a computer. Use of these rooms is scheduled electronically.
Some of our groups have produced wonderful interactive websites and even computer
games. It all takes money. It’s a good thing we receive income from the interest paid to
First Subsidy.
14. In addition to tuition and books, our students pay several “activity fees.” These include
lab fees for courses requiring use of computer stations, testing fees and, of course,
yearbook and graduation fees. Oh, and they have to buy their laptops and laptop service
contract through us. That way we’re all on the same page.
15. Everyone is talking about jobs right now: “We need to create more jobs.” “All the
manufacturing jobs have moved offshore.” “We’re not making things in America
anymore.” I think they’re missing the real picture. The United States is making double
what it used to make, but with fewer workers because it’s all computers and robotics
now. That’s why I’m so excited about getting the sons and daughters of former
assembly-line workers into our technical programs. That’s where the jobs are.
16. I can get really enthusiastic about what CPU offers its students, but really, it’s up to each
student to make use of our support services. I explained all that to Morgan Martin when I
met with him/her during the admission process. I have a checklist of things I need to
cover with each prospective student. It really helps me to remember what I have to go
over with them. I see so many, you know, that I might not remember what I covered with
76
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
each without it. There are some applicants who stick in my memory, like the really tall
girl who wanted a music program, or the boy who only cared about parking. Morgan was
one I remembered because I thought s/he had potential. All those computer classes in
high school! I suppose I should have been warned by his/her lack of questions. I have
several places in the process where I ask, “Do you have any questions?” Usually the
ones who’ve had a lot of computer courses in high school pester me with such technical
questions I have to call on a faculty member or the registrar to answer them. But not
Morgan. S/he did not ask any questions. Nope. None at all.
17. I really don’t think it’s fair for Morgan to demand financial compensation for his/her
failure to do his/her homework before applying to CPU. S/he should have read the loan
application which I gave him/her. I advised him/her to read the documents and I gave
him/her time to do so. It’s not my fault, or CPU’s either, if s/he failed to ask questions, to
research the school or alternative methods of paying for it on the Internet.
To the best of my knowledge the above is true.
Dated: Little Valley, NY
December 29, 2012
Dana Detter
DANA DETTER
77
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
78
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Affidavit of Casey Key
Former CPU Student
1. My name is Casey Key. I am 20 years old and live in Fallsview, NY.
2. I am currently employed as a programmer with Face Space, a popular social networking
website that will soon be going public.
3. I attended Little Valley High School, where I was basically a B minus student.
4. In May 2012, I graduated from Cattaraugus Programming University (CPU), a two-year,
private for-profit community college. I was valedictorian, an honor of which I am
extremely proud. I received an associate’s degree in computer science.
5. I credit CPU with helping me to obtain a job at Face Space by providing me with an
outstanding education in the computer sciences. Sure, some professors took sabbaticals
or leaves of absence while I was at CPU, but there were always enough courses from
which to choose.
6. As a matter of fact, I took full advantage of the many internships made available to CPU
students, realizing that such supervised practical experience and networking
opportunities would substantially increase the chances of my securing a position in my
chosen field, particularly in light of the difficult job market. Also, anyone who’s
determined to achieve that goal knows that resulting letters of recommendation from
internship supervisors would give him/her an additional edge.
7. I also firmly believe that the efforts and connections of CPU’s career placement office
played a major part in my having secured my current position with Face Space. Almost
from the start, I used their resources to help identify specific areas of need in the industry
in terms of qualifying myself for future employment. For example, I utilized that
information in selecting my courses each semester. And, as graduation approached, I
continued to use the CPU office for job placement guidance, employment leads, referrals
and arranging interviews.
8. I first learned about CPU from a brochure I received in the mail when I was entering my
senior year of high school. What really caught my attention was the promise of a
“world-class education,” with courses taught by “accredited computer science
professionals” with the “highest qualifications in their field.” That, plus the fact that
“over 95% of CPU graduates received computer-related employment,” basically sealed
my decision. Sure, some of the statements in CPU’s brochure could have been more
explanatory, but I was sold, so I took the tour.
79
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
9. During the tour, additional information was provided, and everyone had the chance to ask
questions, although I didn’t have any and I don’t remember any questions that may have
been asked. While on the tour, I met Morgan Martin. When it was over, I believe that
there was a detailed session on financial assistance and loans. At that point, though, I
didn’t pay much attention, since I was the fortunate beneficiary of a 529 plan that my
grandmother had established. I applied to CPU and was accepted.
10. Early into my first year on campus, I ran into Morgan, who reminded me we had met on
the tour. I commented on how we both must have come to the same conclusion about
what CPU had to offer, especially in terms of the quality of their programs and job
placement opportunities. To my surprise, Morgan replied, “Are you kidding? I’m only
here because I just couldn’t wait to leave Fallsview. Can you believe my computer
science teacher had actually suggested that I go to Fallsview Community College for my
first two years?”
11. Other than that brief conversation, I really didn’t have much to do with Morgan at CPU.
I’m not into partying. I studied hard, spent a lot of time in CPU’s computer labs and
kept my grades up. I can’t say the same thing about Morgan, whom I rarely saw in the
library or the lab and always seemed to be fooling around in the student union building
whenever I walked by or ran in for a quick bite to eat. I would best describe Morgan as
extremely lazy, a real slacker. I’m sure that is why his/her grades were poor, and I’m
not surprised that s/he couldn’t get a job after graduation.
12. Regardless, CPU offered certain classes, including some required courses, during
summer semesters. People like Morgan could lessen their load for the regular academic
year by taking a course or two during the months of June, July and/or August. I also
took advantage of this and attended CPU in the summer.
13. True, many of my other classmates have struggled to find work in this tough economy,
but most of them have been persistent and ultimately landed jobs. I’ll bet Morgan never
even tried to use CPU’s career placement office, let alone bother to seriously prepare for
and seek a position on his/her own. S/he probably enjoys not working and is only suing
CPU in the hope that s/he’ll never have to get a real job!
To the best of my knowledge, the above is true.
Dated:
Fallsville, NY
Casey Key
December 20, 2012
Casey Key
80
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT
EVIDENCE
PART V
81
82
Cattaraugus Programming University
An Excellent Value for a
World Class Education
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE 1/19/13
Welcome to Cattaraugus Programming University!
Here at CPU we know that each individual has the ability to forge their own path to success. CPU welcomes
all students who have drive, desire, and a willingness to
succeed. At CPU we offer instant admission, personalized advisement from our career placement office,
affordable tuition and private financial aid for qualified
applicants, flexible schedules with both in-person and
online class offerings, a wide range of extracurricular
activities on our beautiful campus, and an opportunity
to prepare for your future in the fast changing and always challenging computer industry.
CPU courses are ta
augh
ht by faculty and staff who are accredited
ed com
ompu
puter scie
pu
ence professionals who posses the
highe
est qu
est
es
ual
alifi
ific
ifi
cattio
ons in
n their field. While we encourage our
stude
ents to at
en
atte
ttend
nd
d classses in-person in our state of the art
classrroo
ooms
ms, we unders
ms,
nd stand that not everyone’s schedule
is that flflex
exxib
ible
l , so
o man
a y of our courses are offered online in
order to
o mak
a e yo
our goa
als even more attainable. Our trained
career pla
ca
lace
ce
ement
ment offi
f ce is experienced at finding unpaid
inte
in
te
ern
rnsh
ship
ip
ps fo
forr CP
CPU’
U s st
students at several local tech firms;
thes
th
esse hi
high
ghly
ly com
o pe
petititve
e positions are an opportunity CPU is
prrou
o d to off
f er our stude
de
ents. The prestige of a CPU education
tio
on is ev
eviidenced
id
in tha
a
at over 95% of graduates received
co
omp
mput
uter
er-r
-rel
elat
ated emp
mplo
loyment or are accepted into a four
y ar
ye
a institution
n witith
hin on
one year after graduation.
“CPU gave me the educational
opportunities that allowed me to become
a successful video game developer.
I’m living my dream!”
-Stan Skrilling, PeaceNotWar Gaming
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE 1/19/13
CPU’s Association Degree programs are:
• Computer Science
• Digital Media Arts
• Website Development
• Information Systems Administration
• Video Game Development
• Computer Forensics
If continuing your education is what you wish
to do, rest assured, credits earned at CPU are
transferable to numerous four-year colleges. *
“CPU graduates have proven to be the most
prepared and innovative employees.”
-Shirley Ulyed, Flying V Industries
Are you ready to take the next step
towards a high paying,
rewarding career?
Call or email our admissions office.
An Admissions Counselor will contact you
immediately to answer your questions and
set up an appointment to visit our campus.
Call CPU’s Admissions Office at
(555) 456-9988 x 3423 or
email at [email protected]
Your future is waiting.
*Part of the CPU network of sister schools found in the Cayman Islands, Tahiti, Fiji,
Nevis, and Grenada.
Call today.
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE 1/19/13
CPU
Cattaraugus Programming University
A World Class
Education
10001 State Route 12
Little Valley, NY 10101
www.CPUniversity.edu
(555) 456-9988
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
-
CPU NSA Form2009ANS
EDITED VERSION FOR FINAL USE 1/19/13
First Subsidy Loans, Inc.
PO Box 102929
Hedge Valley, IN 25221
INSTANT APPROVAL
GUARANTEED STUDENT LOAN APPLICATION
How to Apply:
 Please complete application in full
 Signature needed
Name __
_______________________________________________________________________________
Address___
__________________________
City __
___________________________ State ___ _____ Zip Code __
______
Phone _
______Cell _
_______Email __
_____
Birthdate _/ __/
___
Social Security Number - Amount of loan requested $__
_______
School Name __________
__________
School year and semester: Fall__
___ Spring
____ Summer ____________
Employment/Sources of Income___
Name and Address of Employer __
Title ____
Supervisor’s Name ___
Salary __
________per hr/wk/yr
Please list two references:
_____
__
__________________________
_______________________
________ Years Employed __ __
____________________
________________________
____________________
Terms and Conditions
First Subsidy Loans, Inc. is a private banking institution and an affiliate of Cattaraugus Programming University.
If applicant is under 18 years of age, a cosigner is required.
Interest begins accruing on the date of loan disbursement. There are three options of loan repayment:
The loan can be repaid in full at any time after disbursement with no fee or penalty.
Interest only payments beginning 30 days after the disbursement of the loan. The principal and interest payments begin 2.5 years after the initial loan disbursement.
The loan can be deferred while attending school. Payments including principal and interest begin 2.5 years after the initial loan disbursement. Interest is capitalized if loan
payments are deferred while enrolled in school.
Interest is set at a principal rate of LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) plus a margin. LIBOR is a variable rate and adjusted quarterly. The First Subsidy Loans variable rate can fall
between 3.55% to 10.75% based upon credit score and other factors.
No originating fees.
Are you a citizen or permanent resident of the U.S.?
Are you currently in default or have other judgments against you for previous loans?
Have you read the Terms and Conditions?
Your signature in full is required to process your application.
Signature __
____ Date_
1/2010 loan application
Yes _ No __
Yes __ No
Yes
No __
Cosigner (if under 18)_________________________
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
FROM THE DESK OF:
DANA DETTER
Prospective Student Checklist
Name:_______________________________________________________
Address:_____________________________________________________
Phone:_____________________________________
Cell:________________________________________
High School Attended:_______________________________________
High School Graduation Date:______________
Goals
• Where do you expect to be in 5 years?
• How much do you expect to earn in five years?
•
•
Have you taken our campus tour?
Ask if the prospective student has any questions.
•
•
•
•
Have you applied to other colleges?
If yes, Have you been admitted or are you waiting to hear?
Explain our instant admission policy.
Ask if there are any questions.
•
•
Do you prefer to live on campus?
Would you prefer to take classes online?
Brochures
•
•
•
•
given:
Promotional Media
Class schedule
Campus Directory
Chamber of Commerce Directory
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
FROM THE DESK OF:
DANA DETTER
Financial Aid
• How will you pay for college?
• 529 plan?
• Savings?
• Parental contribution?
• Explain our instant loan program from our affiliate, First Subsidy
Loans.
•
Give our 1 page application and the First Subsidy Loan form to
prospective student, explain both and leave the room to give the
prospective student time (at least 20 minutes) to complete the
forms if he/she wishes to go forward.
•
Upon returning to the room, inquire again whether the student
has any questions.
Answer any questions.
Review the forms for completeness.
•
•
If the prospective student decides to attend CPU, give him/her a
welcome packet containing a CPU tee shirt and instructions for
obtaining an ID card and a class schedule.
Initial _______
Date_______________
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Morgan Martin
125 Bear Ridge Road
Fallsview, NY 14112
Degree received: Associate of Science in Information Systems Technology May 2012
Fall Semester 2010
Credits
Points
Business English
C
3
6
Business Math
C-
3
5.1
Business Value Chain
B-
3
8.1
Intro to Information Systems
B
3
9
Principles of Accounting 1
C-
4
8
Semester Average
2.19
Cumulative Index
2.19
Spring Semester 2011
Business Finance
C-
1.7
5.1
Business Writing
C
3
6
Intro to Website Development
C
3
6
Marketing Principles
C
3
6
Principles of Accounting 2
C-
4
6.8
Semester Average
1.87
Cumulative Index
2.03
VERSION FOR FINAL USE
1/19/13
Summer Semester 2011
Intro to Software Application Tools
C+
3
6.9
Intro to Web Systems Design
C
3
6
Semester Average
2.15
Cumulative Index
2.05
Fall Semester 2011
Advanced Website Development
C-
3
5.1
Business Management
B-
3
8.1
Information Technology Software
C
3
6
Microeconomics
C-
3
5.1
Natural Science
C-
3
5.1
Semester Average
1.96
Cumulative Index
2.02
Spring Semester 2012
Building Web Applications
C
3
6
Designing the User Experience
C
3
6
Information Technology:Hardware
B
3
9
Macroeconomics
C-
3
5.1
Social Networking Design
C
3
6
Semester Average
2.14
Cumulative Index
2.05
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
RELATED CASES
AND CASE LAW
PART VI
95
96
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 NY2d 20,
623 NYS2d 529, 647 NE2d 741 [1995]
Case involved a union that had opened accounts with the bank for the union’s pension fund and
the welfare fund. Federal bank rules do not allow not-for-profit entities to earn interest on
deposits in excess of $100,000.00. In setting up the accounts, the bank presented the blue
signature cards intended for for-profit entities, where there is no interest limitation, instead of the
green card, which sets forth the limitation. In reversing the Appellate Division’s decision
granting summary judgment to the bank, the Court of Appeals held that to state a cause of action
under GBL §349, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant's conduct was: (1) consumer oriented;
(2) deceptive or misleading in a material way; and (3) that plaintiff suffered injury as a result.
(See also Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 698 NYS2d 615, 720 NE2d 892 [1999]
- intent to defraud and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not elements of a GBL §349 claim
and Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 NY2d 24, 709 NYS2d 892, 731 NE2d 608 [2000]).
Gomez-Jimenez v. New York Law School, 36 Misc3d 230, 943 NYS2d 834 [March 21, 2012]
Nine graduates of New York Law School alleged that data published by the law school pertaining
to graduates’ employment and salaries was misleading and deceptive in violation of GBL §349.
In dismissing the complaint, the court held that the postgraduate employment statistics in the law
schools marketing materials were not misleading or deceptive in a material way for a reasonable
consumer acting reasonably.
Drew v. Sylvan Learning Center Corp., 16 Misc3d 836, 842 NYS2d 270 [June 12, 2007]
Finding that the defendant had violated General Business Law §349, the court determined that the
defendant had deceived the plaintiff by guaranteeing that its services would improve her
children's grade levels and thereby implying that its standards were aligned with the Board of
Education's standards, thus allowing the plaintiff to believe that the defendant was in a position to
assist in improving her children's grade levels. The court noted that the defendant's own written
disclaimer proved that it had no valid basis for its guarantee, concluding that the deception led to
the plaintiff incurring the expense of paying for the defendant's program.
Vallery v. Bermuda Star Line, Inc., 141 Misc2d 395, 532 NYS2d 965 [1988]
Based on the information given by defendant's agent and the material contained in the defendant’s
brochure, the plaintiffs decided to book passage with the defendant’s cruise vessel for a seven-day
cruise to Bermuda. The plaintiffs chose the category 1 cabin, which entitled them to a first-class
accommodation. The cabin was less than satisfactory inasmuch as the room did not resemble the
pictures in the brochure. Finding for the plaintiff, the court held that the test as to whether the
representation is deceptive or misleading is measured not against the standard of a reasonable
person but against the public, including the unwary or unthinking consumers who buy on impulse
motivated by appearances and general impressions as affected by advertising and sales
representations. In other words, the test is not whether the average man would be deceived but
the individual consumer's sensitivity and vulnerability are to be considered in determining the
validity of the advertising or sales representations. The court determined that the plaintiffs were
induced into purchasing tickets for the Bermuda cruise from the printed material and pictures in
the brochure, and the representations made by defendant's agent.
97
NY General Business Law §349.
(a) Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the
furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.
...
(h) In addition to the right of action granted to the attorney general pursuant to this section, any
person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section may bring an action in his
own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover his actual damages or fifty
dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions. The court may, in its discretion, increase the
award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand
dollars, if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this section. The court
may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
(Added L.1970, c. 43, §2. Amended L.1980, c. 346, §1; L.1984, c. 157, §1.)
98
NEW YORK STATE
HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL
APPENDECISES
99
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT PERFORMANCE RATING GUIDELINES
POINTS
1
Ineffective
2
Fair
3
Good
4
Very Good
5
Excellent
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not prepared/disorganized/illogical/uninformed
Major points not covered
Difficult to hear/speech is too soft or too fast to be easily understood
Speaks in monotone
Persistently invents (or elicits invented) facts
Denies facts witness should know
Ineffective in communications
Minimal performance and preparation
Performance lacks depth in terms of knowledge of task and materials
Hesitates or stumbles
Sounds flat/memorized rather than natural and spontaneous
Voice not projected
Communication lack clarity and conviction
Occasionally invents facts or denies facts that should be known
Good performance but unable to apply facts creatively
Can perform outside the script but with less confidence than when using the script
Doesn’t demonstrate a mastery of the case but grasps major aspects of it
Covers essential points/well prepared
Few, if any mistakes
Speaks clearly and at good pace but could be more persuasive
Responsive to questions and/or objections
Acceptable but uninspired performance
•
•
•
Presentation is fluent, persuasive, clear and understandable
Student is confident
Extremely well prepared—organizes materials and thoughts well and exhibits a mastery of the cas
and materials
Handles questions and objections well
Extremely responsive to questions and/or objections
Quickly recovers from minor mistakes
Presentation was both believable and skillful
Able to apply case law and statutes appropriately
Able to apply facts creatively
Able to present analogies that make case easy for judge to understand
Outstandingly well prepared and professional
Supremely self-confident, keeps poise under duress
Thinks well on feet
Presentation was resourceful, original and innovative
Can sort out the essential from non-essential and uses time effectively
Outstandingly responsive to questions and/or objections
Handles questions from judges and attorneys (in the case of a witness) extremely well
Knows how to emphasize vital points of the trial and does so
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Professionalism•
of Team
•
•
Between 1 to 1 •
points
•
per team
•
Team’s overall confidence, preparedness and demeanor
Compliance with the rules of civility
Zealous but courteous advocacy
Honest and ethical conduct
Knowledge of the rules of the competition
Absence of unfair tactics, such as repetitive baseless objections and signals
100
NEW YORK STATE MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT PERFORMANCE RATING SHEET
In deciding which team has made the best presentation in the case you are judging, use the following criteria
to evaluate each team’s performance. For each of the performance categories listed below, rate each team
on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows (use whole numbers only).
1=Ineffective
2=Fair
3=Good
4=Very Good
5=Excellent
Time Limits
Opening Statements
5 minutes for each side
Direct Examination
7 minutes for each side
Cross Examination
5 minutes for each side
Closing Arguments
5 minutes for each side
Plaintiff/ Prosecution
Opening Statements
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
Plaintiff/ Prosecution Cross and Re-Cross
First Witness
Examination by Attorney
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
Plaintiff/ Prosecution Cross and Re-Cross
Second Witness
Examination by Attorney
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
Plaintiff/ Prosecution Cross and Re-Cross
Examination by Attorney
Third Witness
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
101
Defense
Plaintiff/ Prosecution
Defense
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
DefenseFirst Witness
Cross and Re-Cross
Examination by Attorney
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
DefenseSecond Witness
Cross and Re-Cross
Examination by Attorney
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
Direct and Re-Direct
Examination by Attorney
Defense-Third Witness Cross and Re-Cross
Examination by Attorney
Witness Preparation and
Credibility
Closing Statements
Professionalism (1-10 points PER team)
• Team’s overall confidence, preparedness and demeanor
• Compliance with the rules of civility
• Zealous but courteous advocacy
• Honest and ethical conduct
• Knowledge of the rules of the competition
• Absence of unfair tactics, such as repetitive baseless
objections and signals
Total
Judge’s Name: _____________________________________________ Please Print
In the event of a tie, please award one point to the team you feel won this round
Prosecution
Defense
(circle your choice):
102
NEW YORK STATEWIDE HIGH SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
REGIONAL CHAMPIONS
2013
WILL IT BE YOUR TEAM?
2012
Clarence High School
Jamesville-Dewitt High School
Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School
Nyack High School
Townsend Harris High School
William Floyd High School
2011
Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart
Seton Catholic Central
LEAH Schenectady Homeschool Team
Blind Brook High School
Bronx High School of Science
William Floyd High School
2010
Brighton High School
Vestal High School
LEAH Schenectady Homeschool Team
Scarsdale High School
James Madison High School
William Floyd High School
2009
Pittsford Mendon High School
Lehman Alternative Community School
Madrid-Waddington Central School
Rye Neck High School
Tottenville High School
W. Tresper Clarke High School
2008
Clarence High School
Bishop Ludden Jr./Sr. High School
Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School
Nyack High School Tottenville High School
Tottenville High School
East Islip 103
High School
2007
Clarence High School
Vestal High School
Potsdam High School
Blind Brook High School
Bronx School for Law, Government and Justice
Bay Shore High School
2006
Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart
Lehman Alternative Community School
LEAH Schenectady Homeschool Team
Blind Brook High School
Marymount High School of New York
William Floyd High School
2005
Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart
Vestal High School
Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School
Blind Brook High School
James Madison High School
William Floyd High School
2004
McQuaid Jesuit High School
Union-Endicott High School
Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School
Ramapo High School
Tottenville High School
William Floyd High School
2003
Albany Academy for Girls
Hunter College High School
Minisink Valley High School
Vestal High School
Williamsville North High School
W. Tresper Clarke High School
104
2002
Pittsford-Mendon High School
Vestal High School
Coxsackie-Athens High School
Ramapo High School
The Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Upper School of Rainaz
William Floyd High School
2001
St. Francis High School
Chittenango High School
Albany Academy for Girls
Kingston High School
The Kew-Forest School
William Floyd High School
2000
St. Francis High School
Norwich High School
Notre Dame-Bishop Gibbons High School
Sleepy Hollow High School
The Kew-Forest School
Roslyn High School
1999
Orchard Park High School
Dewitt High School
The Academy of the Holy Names
Mt. Vernon High School
Louis D. Brandeis High School
William Floyd High School
1998
Allendale Columbia School
Seton Catholic Central High School
Scotia-Glenville High School
John S. Burke Catholic High School
The Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Upper School of Rainaz
Stella K. Abraham High School for Girls
1997
Canisius High School
Susquehanna Valley High School
Waterford-Halfmoon High School
Mt. Vernon High School
St. Ann’s
105 School
Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway
1996
Canisius High School
Fayetteville-Manlius High School
Waterford-Halfmoon High School
Port Jervis High School
Townsend Harris High School
Port Washington Senior High School
1995
Clarence High School
New Berlin Central School
Scotia-Glenville High School
Spring Valley Senior High School
Sheepshead Bay High School
Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway
1994
Buffalo Seminary High School
Seton Catholic Central School
Waterford-Halfmoon High School
Kingston High School
York Preparatory School
Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway
1993
Pittsford Mendon High School
Seton Catholic Central School
Waterford-Halfmoon High School
Kingston High School
Martin Van Buren High School
Syosset High School
1992
Pittsford Mendon High School
Fayetteville-Manlius High School
Ballston Spa High School
Byram Hills High School
Edward R. Murrow High School
Half Hollow Hills High School—West
1991
Brighton High School
Fayetteville-Manlius High School
Academy of the Holy Names
Kingston High School
Andrew Jackson High School
106
Port Washington Senior High School
1990
Canisius High School
Seton Catholic Central High School
Ballston Spa High School
Kingston High School
Edward R. Murrow High School
Roslyn High School
1989
Canisius High School
Binghamton High School
Waterford-Halfmoon High School
Kingston High School
Riverdale Country School
Roslyn High School
1988
St. Francis High School
Chittenango Central School
Christian Brothers Academy Spring Valley High School
Packer Collegiate Institute
Half Hollow Hills High School—East
1987
Greece-Athena High School
Binghamton High School
Shenendehowa High School
Ossining High School
Packer Collegiate Institute
Roslyn High School
1986
Clarence Central High School
Binghamton High School
Albany High School
Mount Vernon High School
Jamaica High School
George W. Hewlett High School
1985
Pittsford Mendon High School
Union-Endicott High School
South Colonie High School
Harrison High School
Martin Van Buren High School
Brentwood High School
107
1984
R. L. Thomas
Fayetteville-Manlius High School
Colonie High School
Harrison High School
The Ramaz School
Bay Shore High School
1983
Pittsford Mendon High School
Union-Endicott High School Keveny Memorial Academy
Ossining High School
The Ramaz School
Half Hollow Hills High School—West
1982
Fairport High School
Maine-Endwell High School
Cohoes High School
North Rockland High School
Jamaica High School
Hewlett High School
108
109
110
2013 Mock Trial
Summer Institute
July 14-19, 2013
Silver Bay YMCA
Lake George, NY.
Send an email to Stacey Whiteley at
[email protected] with 2013 MTSI in the
subject line to be included on future email
notifications!
111
112
SO
OCIAL
LM
MED
DIA
A
www.fa
w
aceboo
ok.com
m/NYSMockT
Trial
ww
ww.tw
witter.c
com/NY
YSMoc
ckTria
al
www.p
w
interest.com
m/nyciv
viced
www..lycny..org
113
YOUTH COURT…IS IT FOR YOU?? •
•
•
•
•
Do you wish to practice your courtroom skills in more “real life” situations? Would you like to be an agent of change in another young person’s life? Do you want to be part of the solution? Would you like to work closely with attorneys, judges, and law enforcement officials as you further your legal and civic education? Would you like to work with like‐minded students that are both passionate about the law as well as interested in providing positive peer pressure for those most at risk? If you answered yes to any of the questions above, then you should become a Youth Court member. If your school or community doesn’t have a Youth Court, let us help! LYC and the Association of NYS Youth Courts can assist in providing resources and training material to start a Youth Court in your school or in your community. With hands on help from one of the many Association members and from the NYSBA, along with the support of your community, you can get a Youth Court started too. For a list of NYS Youth Courts and more information regarding Youth Courts please visit: www.nysyouthcourts.org 114
]